Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6017710" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>That's an awesome post that deserves more XP (unfortunately I'm XP-barred at the moment).</p><p></p><p>I think the random element (or some other system technique) also has to, in some loose way of speaking, "channel" the conflict into resolutions (which can be temporary or partial), to give you the pass/fail, with either producing complications, structure that drives narrativist play.</p><p></p><p>The reason I add that bit is because I'm influenced by <a href="http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/" target="_blank">this blog</a> in thinking that satisfying RPGing in narrativist mode requires the players <em>not to have to take responsibility for the story</em> - just for playing their PCs through those drives/conflicts. And because GM force (whether literally from the GM, or from another participant exercising scene-framing authority) is also highly regulated (so as to protect protagonism), the mechanics have to step in to help provide a guaranteed push-to-resolution.</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying, therefore, that the rules have to be fiddly. But that extra bit - the action resolution mechanics - is where some fiddliness can creep in. (Eg HeroWars bidding system before HeroQuest revised took it out.)</p><p></p><p>I don't know the FATE games except by reputation. BW I think could be played in a very Sim way - it would resemble RuneQuest a bit, or even HARP - but certain of its features wouldn't make sense for this play style - especially its advancement rules. (To advance, you have to use your skill/ability in a variety of situations of varying difficulties, including (near-)impossible ones. The purpose of this is to give the player a reason to set his/her PC up to fail - ie a metagame purpose that has no ingame correlation for a sim person to hook up to.) And Gamist BW would also make some sense to me - it has a lot of crunch for gamists to sink their teeth into - although some of the PC build costs are a bit out in this respect (eg various disadvantages still cost build points, because of the spotlight time they will generate), and the Belief mechanics might seem strangely out of synch - it would be strange to roleplay my guy's inner conflict really well so as to get the "mouldbreaker" award, without actually caring about the fictional stakes that the inner conflict expresses.</p><p></p><p>But I don't think it's right to therefore say that BW is really a sim system being twisted to narrativist goals. It's a narrativist system that heavily emphasises system, and exploration of system, as a subordinate aspect of play. (I know TRoS mostly by reptuation, but I think it would be similar to BW in this respect - and is mentiond as an influence in the Bibliography to revised BW.)</p><p></p><p>I think the 4e "solution" to this was very clever (from the publisher piont of view). Instead of going for a free-descriptors game (like HeroWars/Quest, or - I gather from other posts of yours - Capes), they go for really, really long lists of fixed descriptors (races, classes, powers, paragon paths, epic destinies, equipment, etc). Which they then sell you in supplements.</p><p></p><p>I agree with this. Those long lists in 4e don't support gamism. They support either high concept sim ("Cool, now I can be a fey plant guy who shoots arrows infused with primal spirits") or light narrativism (I don't think Wilden and Seekers are very rich in this repsect, though maybe others find thematic richness in them that I miss - but (still in the PHB3) I think Minotaurs, Monks, Psions and Runepriests are reasonably thematically laden, within the context of a fantasy RPG).</p><p></p><p>Agreed on skill challenges and the possibility for TotM "skill challenge" combat in a 4e-like framework.</p><p></p><p>On fiddly social conflict resolution, BW Duel of Wits is the fiddliest I know of: you script your argument as you would your combat, and then resolve via versus tests as you would your combat (with special manouevres, including verbal "feints" and "knockdowns"). With an action economy (you can make your interlocutor "miss a turn"). And a "body of argument" that gets depleted via successful wordplay.</p><p></p><p>What mostly differentiates it from the combat mechanics is the comparative looseness of fit between mechanics and fiction: there is much more freedom to characterise what exactly it is that a character is saying when verbally "feinting" or trying for a "knockdown" (whereas in physical combat this is likely more of a given from the mechanics); and that fiction actually <em>matters intimately</em> to resolution. This is because, unless the winner's body of argument is completely untouched, at the end of the duel the loser is entitled to a compromise, the degree of which depends on the degree of "damage" to the winner's body of argument, and the terms of which are going to have to be derived from the fiction that was produced in the course of resolution. Whereas, in phsyical combat, I don't need the <em>fiction</em> to tell me what consequences flow from being hit by a weapon: the mechanics themselves answer that question, much like a traditional fantasy RPG.</p><p></p><p>I don't know if the above analysis of the Duel of Wits completely confirms your claim about narrativism and mechanics, but I think it is consistent with your view that there is <em>something</em> distinctive going on in the contrast between pysical combat and social conflict resolution.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6017710, member: 42582"] That's an awesome post that deserves more XP (unfortunately I'm XP-barred at the moment). I think the random element (or some other system technique) also has to, in some loose way of speaking, "channel" the conflict into resolutions (which can be temporary or partial), to give you the pass/fail, with either producing complications, structure that drives narrativist play. The reason I add that bit is because I'm influenced by [url=http://isabout.wordpress.com/2010/02/16/the-pitfalls-of-narrative-technique-in-rpg-play/]this blog[/url] in thinking that satisfying RPGing in narrativist mode requires the players [I]not to have to take responsibility for the story[/I] - just for playing their PCs through those drives/conflicts. And because GM force (whether literally from the GM, or from another participant exercising scene-framing authority) is also highly regulated (so as to protect protagonism), the mechanics have to step in to help provide a guaranteed push-to-resolution. I'm not saying, therefore, that the rules have to be fiddly. But that extra bit - the action resolution mechanics - is where some fiddliness can creep in. (Eg HeroWars bidding system before HeroQuest revised took it out.) I don't know the FATE games except by reputation. BW I think could be played in a very Sim way - it would resemble RuneQuest a bit, or even HARP - but certain of its features wouldn't make sense for this play style - especially its advancement rules. (To advance, you have to use your skill/ability in a variety of situations of varying difficulties, including (near-)impossible ones. The purpose of this is to give the player a reason to set his/her PC up to fail - ie a metagame purpose that has no ingame correlation for a sim person to hook up to.) And Gamist BW would also make some sense to me - it has a lot of crunch for gamists to sink their teeth into - although some of the PC build costs are a bit out in this respect (eg various disadvantages still cost build points, because of the spotlight time they will generate), and the Belief mechanics might seem strangely out of synch - it would be strange to roleplay my guy's inner conflict really well so as to get the "mouldbreaker" award, without actually caring about the fictional stakes that the inner conflict expresses. But I don't think it's right to therefore say that BW is really a sim system being twisted to narrativist goals. It's a narrativist system that heavily emphasises system, and exploration of system, as a subordinate aspect of play. (I know TRoS mostly by reptuation, but I think it would be similar to BW in this respect - and is mentiond as an influence in the Bibliography to revised BW.) I think the 4e "solution" to this was very clever (from the publisher piont of view). Instead of going for a free-descriptors game (like HeroWars/Quest, or - I gather from other posts of yours - Capes), they go for really, really long lists of fixed descriptors (races, classes, powers, paragon paths, epic destinies, equipment, etc). Which they then sell you in supplements. I agree with this. Those long lists in 4e don't support gamism. They support either high concept sim ("Cool, now I can be a fey plant guy who shoots arrows infused with primal spirits") or light narrativism (I don't think Wilden and Seekers are very rich in this repsect, though maybe others find thematic richness in them that I miss - but (still in the PHB3) I think Minotaurs, Monks, Psions and Runepriests are reasonably thematically laden, within the context of a fantasy RPG). Agreed on skill challenges and the possibility for TotM "skill challenge" combat in a 4e-like framework. On fiddly social conflict resolution, BW Duel of Wits is the fiddliest I know of: you script your argument as you would your combat, and then resolve via versus tests as you would your combat (with special manouevres, including verbal "feints" and "knockdowns"). With an action economy (you can make your interlocutor "miss a turn"). And a "body of argument" that gets depleted via successful wordplay. What mostly differentiates it from the combat mechanics is the comparative looseness of fit between mechanics and fiction: there is much more freedom to characterise what exactly it is that a character is saying when verbally "feinting" or trying for a "knockdown" (whereas in physical combat this is likely more of a given from the mechanics); and that fiction actually [I]matters intimately[/I] to resolution. This is because, unless the winner's body of argument is completely untouched, at the end of the duel the loser is entitled to a compromise, the degree of which depends on the degree of "damage" to the winner's body of argument, and the terms of which are going to have to be derived from the fiction that was produced in the course of resolution. Whereas, in phsyical combat, I don't need the [I]fiction[/I] to tell me what consequences flow from being hit by a weapon: the mechanics themselves answer that question, much like a traditional fantasy RPG. I don't know if the above analysis of the Duel of Wits completely confirms your claim about narrativism and mechanics, but I think it is consistent with your view that there is [I]something[/I] distinctive going on in the contrast between pysical combat and social conflict resolution. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top