• 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!

"The term 'GNS' is moronic and annoying" – well this should be an interesting interview

No. It really doesn’t presuppose that at all. It presupposes that there are currently trade offs in realism and other things people want, but the door remains open to some novel method of eliminating those tradeoffs. Which is why I said that unless we can remove those tradeoffs (or lessen them) you can’t really say whether people don’t want realism or would prefer it without those tradeoffs.
And then we return exactly to where we left off, that you now have to explain why, in 50 years of trying (according to you, presumably at least A FEW designers tried if it was wanted) no progress has been made in this direction whatsoever. Now, maybe the game designers of the 1970s were such geniuses that they leapt almost directly to the best possible solutions and progress is impossible. I just find that notion implausible and it requires an unsupported unattested fact, thus Occam's Razor came to mind.

Another pointer is that MUCH progress was made in other directions in RPG design, which tends to tell me that early RPGs were far from optimal in those areas, once again bringing into question why they were so good at realism that they cannot be topped.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Gygax said alot of stuff. Alot of it was contradictory or didn’t match his actions.

Which directly disputes Gygax’s claim above, right?
Ah, right, everything Gary said is just hufflefluff. OK, so then how about what he DID? Is D&D at all realistic? No! Gary knew this full well and also understood that IN PLAY there has to be some sort of cognizable way for players to predict the consequences of actions, which even in Narrativist games relies heavily on player expectations, and those are largely rooted in real-world experience.
 

niklinna

satisfied?
Does negotiation over consequence happen in Blades? I don’t really like the system so I’m not that familiar with it. You can clarify stuff about position to clarify consequence, this happens in all role-playing though and it happens very frequently in all good role-playing.
I'd say yes, but it's very short-scale negotiation, as in, "How about I hit a bystander instead?" or "How about the guards see me trying to sneak in?" It's one step down the cascade of events, not like, "So if I lose this roll, so-and-so will be endangered and that will alert the Bluecoats who begin an investigation and they find out I was behind the whole thing." You can start a clock heading toward an eventual likely outcome, but you cannot establish a specific future outcome in the moment.

I throw the petrol bomb at them?

To distract them?

Hmm. No I want to burn them.

Ok you can but going to blatant violence like this is going to make you a target for the police snipers on the roofs

I assume some version of the above is continually happening.
Yeah that's pretty common.

Blades has the whole devil’s bargain thing, which I dislike but I don’t think is negotiation over consequence. The reason I don’t like it is because I ALSO don’t like suggestions and mostly think games are better off without them. When it’s your turn, you do your thing and I don’t get a say.
It isn't negotiation over consequences of the dice roll. It's straight up taking a consequence for getting an extra die on that roll. The GM or the player (or even another player!) can suggest the consequence, so there's negotiation—excuse me, bargaining!—but again the consequence should be simple, either immediate or the beginning of something to be resolved later, in play.

The two are related and can become the same thing but aren’t necessarily the same thing.
Yep!
 
Last edited:

kenada

Legend
Supporter
I’ve been running (or attempting to run) hexcrawls for years. I can’t recall whether I read that back then when I got started or here later, but it looks familiar. Regardless, I don’t agree that those are the only remedies to the Quantum Ogre problem, which is something I discovered while working on my homebrew system.

As the gameworld is not something we can always see physically, information is vital and its on both the DM and the Players to ensure that information is being clarified and tangible, so to speak.
I agree, and I do a few things to ensure that. First, I do actual prep. One should not plan out what events that will happen, but it can be used. For example, when I revealed last session that Lady Emma was the real leader of the raiders, that was straight from my prep and not because it would make for a dramatic reveal or some crap like that.

I also use random events. I’m rolling on OSE’s tables right now, but I plan to develop something specific to my game eventually. I don’t know yet what exactly form that will take, but I think it’s an important part of content generation.

The final piece is a reliable resolution process. Foregrounding consequences is meant to help players reason about what they are doing and prevent GM misplays. If a check is successful, it cannot be negated by consequences. A consequence that is not compatible with success is an invalid consequence.

For example, suppose there is an east and west forest. The players know there are ogres out there and want to avoid them. They can Investigate to look for ogre tracks or Research during downtime in town to learn about ogre habits or even use Rapport to find out from local rangers. It’s really up to them. If they succeed, the ogres are established. Even if an event later says ogres are also in the empty forest, it is invalid because it was established that they are only in the other one.

Another example is the bandit encounter from last session. It had been established previously that there is a bandit camp in the hex to the east, that they were expanding their interest west, and that they were in the local area (due to an event check).

The PCs went into the forest, and one of the consequences foregrounded was finding something they wouldn’t like. They got success + consequences, so they found the trail, and I revealed there were bandits in the forest. Could they have done something about the bandits? Maybe, but they chose not to pursue it and continued on looking for the weretigers.

(I say “maybe” because of the possibility the PCs could bungle their attempt in spite of their best efforts.)

I try to post recaps in the commentary thread. One can see how the system has evolved over time. This weekend, I hope to try some new stuff relating to skill checks (as described here).

That difference, really, goes to the heart of why there's a disconnect and an, if unfortunate, often vitriolic disdain going back and forth between these two sides.

If one doesn't value immersion, you're not only unlike to take to a trad game, but also won't really be able to see why the narrativist take isn't satisfactory, if not abrasive and unwelcome, to those that do value it.

Not that I'm calling people out, but I think its worth noting more than a few people on the other side of this conversation have said they don't value nor see the point in immersion, so I think if we wanted to identify a root issue here, that's a pretty strong candidate.
People value different things and prefer different of playing, which I think is fine. I wish wanting or not wanting to do a particular thing wasn’t taken as an implicit attack on the other. That doesn’t lead to productive discourse, and it makes engaging really exhausting.

Especially because historically there are and were genuinely a lot of bad DMs and GMs out there that did not know to do this, or actively worked against it, and that just exacerbates the problem if you don't naturally see the value in it. The blog I linked speaks directly to that problem and how to address it.
Going back to the instigating quote, I think Baker is assuming functional play. I don’t see how he could suggest live negotiation and honest collaboration as an alternative otherwise. If the GM is bad, that wouldn’t be possible.
 

thefutilist

Adventurer
I'd say yes, but it's very short-scale negotiation, as in, "How about I hit a bystander instead?" or "How about the guards see me trying to sneak in?" It's one step down the cascade of events, not like, "So if I lose this roll, so-and-so will be endangered and that will alert the Bluecoats who begin an investigation and they find out I was behind the whole thing." You can start a clock heading toward an eventual likely outcome, but you cannot establish a specific outcome in the moment.
Ah I didn’t know that. It seems like keeping it immediate stops any kind of pre-play or breakdown into prolonged negotiation happening. I don’t think I’d like playing it* but mostly just because I really vanilla conflict resolution.

*I say this but I did actually GM Blades for a few sessions, it’s possible I just made the resolution more vanilla, I do the same when I MC AW. My memory of the whole affair is spotty for various reasons.
 

hawkeyefan

Legend
I’d push back here. I think they were out to make a realistic and dangerous world. I don’t think it has anything directly to do with the unwelcome. What i would say that in making a dangerous world there is implicitly the concept of the unwelcome present in that.

I don’t think they phrased it in the same way, but I do think the idea of a neutral arbiter is very much related to allowing the unwelcome to happen.

Reaction rolls, random encounter rolls, morale rolls… all these things exist to give the system a say in what happens. It allows for the unexpected and the unwelcome.

Why did those trolls appear? Because of a random encounter roll. Why were they immediately hostile? Because of the reaction roll.

Again, it wasn’t phrased that way. But I don’t think we’re retroactively changing what was happening so much as examining what was happening and looking for additional context.

Gygax never cane right out and said “the game is a conversation” either, but it’s obviously true.
 

Pedantic

Legend
Is "writer's room" just another restatement of the "don't let me make decisions outside my character's actions" thing? That's a usual sticking point, because it's either vitally important, or eye-rollingly unrealistic depending on your perspective.

I respect @kenada immensely for the design work to try and circle the square by aggressively foregrounding consequences as a compromise position. It's essentially taking a thing I've brought up as a solution to agency in rulings play "let the PCs propose actions, and be informed of the resolution method and consequences before committing to the check," just workshopped down small enough to be a usable mechanic.

Fundamentally, I don't think I'd ever be happy with that being anything but a strictly predetermined system side outcome. I simply don't see any way that negotiating position can't be harmful to immersion. That unique alchemy is performed, in my opinion, by limiting the space between character and player decision making as much as possible. Characters are incapable of negotiating with reality; the consequences of their actions are intrinsic to the actions themselves. "Realism" is usually just a proxy for completeness, along with a sniff test for believability of system defined outcomes.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Gygax never cane right out and said “the game is a conversation” either, but it’s obviously true.
The Elusive Shift touches on this. Early versions of D&D used transcripts structured as dialogues as a teaching tool, which Peterson suggests comes from Korns’s Modern War in Miniature. This is how Peterson describes play in that game.

The core idea of the referee reached D&D through other intermediaries as well, of which Michael Korns’s Modern War in Miniature (1966) is probably the most important. The referees, or “judges,” of Korns’s wargames “are the only ones who need to be familiar with the rules. The players only give orders as they would in actual combat.” But “orders” in this case included verbalizing the actions that a player wanted his personal soldier to take. Korns thus structured his game around a dialogue between the referee and the player. He gave an example where the player, a German soldier, hears from the referee, “The American is on your left about 12 meters away running at you with his bayonet.” The player asks, “Can I still move?” and the referee replies, “Yes, but you are almost unconscious.” The player then declares his intended action: “I’m turning around and firing the rest of my schmeisser’s clip into him.” The immediacy of this first-person dialogue creates a far more dramatic pace than the traditional Kriegsspiel conducted through written orders; this mechanism would appear essentially unaltered in D&D.
Excerpt From​
The Elusive Shift
Jon Peterson​
This material may be protected by copyright.​
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
Is "writer's room" just another restatement of the "don't let me make decisions outside my character's actions" thing? That's a usual sticking point, because it's either vitally important, or eye-rollingly unrealistic depending on your perspective.

I respect @kenada immensely for the design work to try and circle the square by aggressively foregrounding consequences as a compromise position. It's essentially taking a thing I've brought up as a solution to agency in rulings play "let the PCs propose actions, and be informed of the resolution method and consequences before committing to the check," just workshopped down small enough to be a usable mechanic.

Fundamentally, I don't think I'd ever be happy with that being anything but a strictly predetermined system side outcome. I simply don't see any way that negotiating position can't be harmful to immersion. That unique alchemy is performed, in my opinion, by limiting the space between character and player decision making as much as possible. Characters are incapable of negotiating with reality; the consequences of their actions are intrinsic to the actions themselves. "Realism" is usually just a proxy for completeness, along with a sniff test for believability of system defined outcomes.
I’m not sure whether or not you’re saying my system wouldn’t be to your taste, which is fine if not, but one thing I do want to clarify is that I am trying to systematize as much of the resolution process as possible. I say as much as possible and not fully because the GM does need the ability to establish situations and say what happens (since players lack the systemic authority to do that), but the GM is constrained in how they do that. It would be a misplay to pull things out of nowhere, and consequence-foregrounding is an important technique for avoiding that.

(As an aside, the idea to explicitly foreground consequences comes from my experience playing in @Manbearcat’s Torchbearer 2e and Blades in the Dark campaigns. He was really good at making sure we knew the stakes, though he wasn’t systematizing it like I am.)
 

pemerton

Legend
OK, but it isn't like there's SETUP that is pushing things into a certain path. We really don't know, when we play, what is going to happen, AT ALL. We know there are certain elements, and we do make up things that happen (the GM particularly).

So, like the other day when we played, Yorath failed a check for something. I forget what it was, but we were out on a mission to lay our fallen comrade to rest. Back in town we'd left Unirra the special child with Branwyn the Ranger (who's now a retired PC, being disabled). The GM decided that the consequences of Yorath's failure were that a threat would emerge to attack Unirra and Branwyn. Yorath and Vahid had also left some of their followers to ensure nothing like this happened, so that played out as a scene without any PCs directly present.

I don't see where we made up the direction of things, certainly not collaboratively. It was more like possible threats to Unirra were already hinted at simply by her nature (established by the GM and some dice rolls a couple sessions ago). So, the GM making that hard move was pretty much the rock bouncing in a certain direction due to the randomly generated shape of the terrain, along with a dose of GM fiat that was HIGHLY constrained by principles and practices. The GM needed to make whatever happened 'follow from the fiction', it needed to be 'interesting', and it needed to be fairly coherent with the current story. The fact that our PCs were present at Branwyn's Hut in proxy (our followers) made it an excellent choice. Our followers were threatened, and potentially an all ready hinted at and partially materialized threat to Stonetop was involved.
This reminded me a bit of my Burning Wheel game:

Alicia and Aedhros had burgled the office of a petty harbour official, had been pursued by guards, and had defeated the guards. Especially from Alicia's perspective - of collecting enough money to buy her own ship - things were looking good. Then Alicia cast a Persuade spell to stop Aedhros murdering one of the defeated guards with his meteoric steel long knife Heart-seeker. But she failed her casting, and also suffered terrible Tax from the casting - a Mortal Wound resulting from the magical energy she conjured up.

Aedhros - whose bitterness and Spite are the result of having failed to prevent his spouse from dying - was determined not to have another person die under his care, especially when he was being observed by his father-in-law (the NPC Thurandril, Elven ambassador to the port town, who Aedhrose blames for his spouse's death, and who had come down to the docks on his own business). So Aedhros did the only thing he could think of - as someone whose Circles include the Path of Spite, and who has a reputation as ill-favoured for himself and others, he looked to see if a bloodletting or surgical necromancer or similar ill-omened type might be nearby the scene!

But my Circles check failed: and so no friendly bloodletter appeared, but rather the Death Artist Thoth. Thoth took Alicia into his workroom, through the secret entrance that leads onto the docks; and Aedhros had no choice but to go with him. And so the game suddenly pivoted from being one about Alicia and Aedhros scrabbling about on the docks, to Aedhros serving as Igor to Thoth (who also serves as a substitute PC for Alicia's player, while Alicia slowly recovers from her Mortal Wound).​

The sequence of events here is:

*A failed check in the burglary attempt had the consequence that someone might have noticed when the petty official tried to escape through a back door that Aedhros and Alicia didn't know about (in AW terms, a soft move);

*Another failed check in the burglary attempt had the consequence that guards turned up through that back door (in AW terms, a hard move);

*A series of checks and player decisions resulted in the PCs being pursued by those guards out of the building and onto the docks, and then defeating the guards in melee (primarily due to Alicia's efforts) with Thurandril looking on - a GM decision in response to a failed check (by me for Aedhros) was that Thurandril had come upon this altercation while going about his business;

*As Aedhros's player, I decided that he tried to run a guard through with Heart-seeker (as per his Instinct to Always repay hurt with hurt);

*Alicia's player decided to try and stop this with a Persuade spell (last time Aedhros attempted cold-blooded murder, Alicia successfully stopped him in this fashion);

*Alicia's player failed both the casting roll and the roll to resist Tax, with the mechanically-determined result that Alicia suffered a Mortal Wound;

*As Aedhros's player, I attempted but failed Song of Soothing to stop the injury progressing to death - another mechanically-determined consequence;

*As Aedhros's player, I declared and rolled the Circles check for a helpful blood-letting necromancer type to turn up, and so the GM narrated Thoth instead (in AW terms, a soft move);

*And events suddenly turn in a completely different direction, as Alicia is taken by Thoth into his Death Art workshop, and from my point of view Aedhros has no choice but to go with them (in AW terms, I can't see any viable way to resist the impetus of the GM's soft move, and so it comes home as something harder).​

As far as "writers' room" goes, there was discussion of consequences at two or three points that I recall:

*At the point where Thurandril came onto the scene, it is likely (though my memory is uncertain) that, as the GM was thinking about how to narrate the result of the failed test, I reminded him of Aedhros's Relationship with Thurandril;

*At the point where Alicia's casting failed, Alicia's player rolled on the Wheel of Magic to determine the results of failure, and we had to interpret the result of a fire effect created nearby: we decided that the out-of-control magic caused the Golden Sow - the vessel on which the two PCs had arrived in Hardby, and still docked in the harbour - to catch fire;

*At the point where my Circles roll failed, we discussed exactly what sort of unsavoury person hostile to Aedhros might turn up when his hope to have a blood-letting necromancer turn up is dashed - it was the GM who decided on Thoth (whose core Belief is "Cometh the corpse, cometh Thoth").​

This seems to me to be in the same general ballpark as what @niklinna has mentioned in the context of the BitD Devil's Bargain - thinking about the PC, and their current circumstance, to identify a suitable consequence for failure. (Though unlike the Devil's Bargain, we are talking about consequences for failed dice rolls.)

But the sequence of events, and the radical change in the direction of play, was not authored in a writers' room. It was driven by the interplay between (i) declared actions, and (ii) mechanical and narrated results, with the narration (iii) building on both immediate situation and established character elements. No one knew that it was coming.

I think it also illustrates how, in Burning Wheel, even when a character is losing - as Alicia and Aedhros were in what I described - they still remain central to the fiction. It is the Golden Sow - the ship that Aedhros and Alicia were hoping to rob, and that perhaps she might have tried to make her own - that has caught fire. The encounter with Thoth confirms Aedhros's Reputation as Ill-fated for himself and others, which I had used to add an additional die to my Circles check. Thurandril observing Aedrhos's failure drives home their hostile relationship, and speaks directly to Aedhros's Beliefs that I will avenge the death of my spouse and that Thurandril will admit that I am right.

It's more character-based and less setting-based than the Stonetop events, but I still think some underlying similarities are pretty evident. And they seem to me to obviously differ from other ways of establishing and evolving the fiction in RPGing.
 

Remove ads

Top