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: 6092438" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think you have misunderstood what Hussar means by "I'll get them next time." As I read it (based on this and other posts by Hussar), he is talking about an approach in which the GM frames the challenge, the players engage the challenge via their PCs, and at the point of resolution each side is pushing hard against the other within the constraints of the action resolution rules.That is also how I run my game, and is my strongly preferred approach to RPGing overall. It depends upon good challenge-building guidelines and robust action resolution mechanics - hence I run 4e at the moment.The second sentence is not really true. For instance, for Hussar spending multiple sessions crawling through a labyrinth has not be a particularly fun experience.Which relates back to the first sentence. I'm not the biggest fan of the "cooperative storytelling model" of RPGing - I prefe the approach I described above - but to the extent that cooperative storytelling is taking place, one of the most important things for the GM to do is to frame challenges that speak to the interests of the players as expressed via their build and play of their PCs.If the players signal they're not interested in the labyrinth crawl or the desert trek, and the GM insists on resolving it in detail in any event, that's not "cooperative storytelling". To be honest, it strike me as a pretty traditional railroad.As far as I can judge from his current sequence of posts, Celebrim's approach is not "say yes or roll the dice" - which is all about invoking the action resolution mechanics only when the players are emotionally invested in the outcome. His approach is "roll the dice" whenever the outcome is, in ingame causal terms, uncertain (as with this dam/spillway example). It bears no relationship that I can see to narrativist or scene-framing play - its strikes me (in this respect, at least) as purist-for-system/process simulation.I agree with this.And I agree with the underlying sentiments of this - ie there's no obligation on a player to slog through boring stuff to get to (what is for them) the fun and the point of playing.I actually think my players have got a pretty good sense of what they do and don't want to engage with in an RPG. It's not about whether or not its fun to fail a ride check or two. It's about whether I want to spend my gaming time imagining my PC and his/her friends slogging through a desert, or through a labyrinth, or whether I want to spend that time imagining them stealing the Sorcer-King's artefact.Some players enjoy world exploration. Others don't. In my view, a good GM takes his/her cue from the players and responds appropriately. If you're GMing a group of players who enjoy world or labyrinth exploration, then run the desert trek or the labyrinth crawl. But if not, then don't (or, alternatively, find new players with different preferences). There's nothing inherently virtuous about world exploration, nor about process simulation, in RPGing.</blockquote>

Verification