Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5157840" data-attributes="member: 42582">In part, becaue there are mechanical constraints upon the setting of difficulty - resulting in metagame priorities being more forthrightly catered to, with the ingame situation then being interpreted as consistent with the difficulty numbers that those priorities determine.In part, because there is a clear framework for determining what happens, in the game, if the players succeed at the requisite number of dice rolls. This is a function both of more express attention to scene framing, and also of having the process for moving from framing to resolution being clearly mechanically established (in HQ, it requires such-and-such a dice roll in a simple contest, or such-and-such number of points accrued in an extended contest; in 4e it requires such-and-such a number of successess before 2 failures in a skill challenge).In part, because - in a HQ extended contest, or in a 4e skill challenge - the ingame situation evolves over a series of dice rolls, which (as in a tactical combat system common to many traditional RPGs) gives the players multiple point of input into the gameworld and the resolution of the conflict. Not everything turns on a single dice roll. (In HQ simple contests, it is a bit different - although Hero Points can still be spent - but a simple contest is by definition one in which the level of player investment is not so high).There may be other differences as well that I've missed in the above, but they're the main ones that occur to me at the moment.Of course, in a modern as in a traditional game it can still all end up falling over. The scene-framing can be sloppy, and the play can drift into an aspect of the scene that was poorly framed. The GM and/or players can suffer from imaginative exhaustion. The dice can come out all 1s or all 20s, making outcomes seem ineluctable. But my experience tells me that these sorts of problems are less likely. When multiple dice rolls are required, even extreme rolls can still leave some suspense in the encounter (just as in combat). When the mechanics guarantee that there will be twists and turns in the story as the resolution unfolds, imagination is more likely to be prompted (just as in combat I don't need to worry if I'm too tired to plot out all the monsters' tactics in advance - the unfolding play situation at the table will normally make me think of new and interesting tactical possibilities).The basic issue for me is whether we decide on "sensible" first and then set the odds, or rather first set the odds, and then set the details of the gameworld to ensure the "sensible". For a long time I played games that took the first approach - primarily AD&D and Rolemaster. I now have a preference for games that take the second approach - particulary 4e D&D. Once upon a time I hated the ingame/metagame wedge that the second approach leads to. Now I just take that separation in my stride. Paying explicit attention to the metagame has straighout increased my enjoyment from fantasy RPGing.The traditional approach requires the GM to decide how hard it is to persuade a Titan given circumstances XYZ. This requires the exercise of discretion. In my experience, in a situation where the players and the GM don't see eye-to-eye on the details of the gameworld (quite a common situation - after all, the GM has all the maps and notes, the players just have their half-baked memories of what the GM has told them is going on), the GM's exercise of discretion can lead to the game misfiring - either the tasks are made so hard that the players with social skills feel ripped off, or so easy that the players with social skills have an at-will "I win" button. Either situation, but especially the first, pushes the game back in the direction of combat, where (in a traditional fantasy RPG) the parameters and rules constraints are known to all participants independently of the discretion of any one of them (monsters have a pregiven AC and hp, player attack rolls are resolved on a known combat matrix etc).The modern approach fastens first upon a difficulty - which is based on metagame considerations about what counts as a mechanically fun and playable challenge - and then gets the GM to tweak the story to fit that. If it turns out that the players don't find the GM's story especially plausible (eg they are expressing surprise that it's so hard, or so easy, to persuade the Titan) the GM can even change the story on the fly as the situation evolves (eg it turns out some other factor was at play which becomes apparanet to the PCs - and hence the players - as the challenge unfolds) without mucking up the flow of the game mechanics.I find the latter approach easier on the GM, more encouraging for the players, and more likely to produce more interesting stories more often. That's just one person's experience, but it's a genuine one. And I know I'm not the only RPGer who has had it.</blockquote>

Verification