Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101373Okay, I don't understand the narrative focus when i said earlier: "Is this superficial? Well, yeah. I'm playing role-playing games primarily for the adventure, not for heavy themes, so that's my focus in this thread."
Maybe I should have been driving this point home more: if we revise the RPGs published for the Middle-Earth setting, we find that they all pretty much center around the adventuring and not around philosophical themes like the power of mercy (yes, I include TOR here). What's particularly confusing is that somebody else already pointed out that there is a difference in medium and P&P RPGs has in many regards the depth of improv theatre. So what's the point?

As a consequence and since I primarily play fantasy for the journey and the adventure (and it seems to me that most fantasy gamers are the same though I guess this is going to prompt a huge discussion of how my attitude is atypical), my focus is on emulating the adventure side of LOTR. To that end (and here's where we connect to fail forward), the question has arisen of how the adventure side of the ending of LOTR -the main protagonist fails his crucial test, the pivotal roll of the game to resist the ring before its impending destruction and STILL the campaign doesn't end in complete desaster as Sauron gets evaporated after all- could work out satisfyingly in a fantasy adventure game. Or if at all!

I suspect there is widespread agreement here that if the PC fails the pivotal check in a campaign and then the GM goes soft and lets the campaign finish with a happy end anyway, as if the test has succeeded, that this is generally seen as unsatisfying. For that would be akin to the "failure not allowed" that the Pundit is characterizing in his video.

So then the question is if there is a path between that and "the pivotal test fails, the world succumbs to darkness" that could still be satisfying, at least for a range of players. And that middle road would probably have to draw on Success-at-a-Cost. Which is in turn where heroic luck could come in (but doesn't have to), just as Gollum slipped in his moment of triumph and then died.

So that's roughly how I see the state of discussion. I'm not sure how exploring the underlying theme of LOTR's climax figures into that.


PS Regarding Destiny: the game explicitly states you can use Destiny to draw on dumb luck and find a scribbled down password. It's clear that this can be veto'd by the GM. But the game does not state: you can't draw on dumb luck after you failed a test and you're stuck. Or does it? I guess what I have been trying to say all along is this: failing to crack a system and then spending a Destiny point in order to be bailed out by dumb luck is a legal move. A legal move that can be denied by GM fiat, of course. But it doesn't have to.

You're REALLY reaching there, especially since the way you framed it from the beginning was so glaringly disingenuous. If you had framed it differently I might've gotten behind you, but you gave a false reference through cherrypicking disparate parts. To try to push that you're correct because the book doesn't explicitly say you cannot do something is bullocks. By your view such a criticism can be applied to nearly any RPG. Are games supposed to cover every single possibility of what can and cannot be done? It's clear what's intended and that's the basis for an official rebuke of your argument.

Quote from: S'mon;1101382Definitely agree with this; it seems to be a persistent theme. (1) Emulating the (2) surface patina of the (3) film version of a (4) story via (5) tabletop RPG mechanics. I don't think this either recreates the feel of watching a film, nor the feel of being a character in the story.

Well, you're wrong about me being hung up on film, that is only one medium for fiction - except that it lends itself best for combat emulation due to information richness. We did take a look at the fight in the Frost Giant's Daughter a while back, if you recall, and it was fairly sparse info.

But let's have a look at some traditional RPGs:

Star Wars Saga, which I am currently in as a player. It (1) emulates the (2) surface patina of the (3) film version of a (4) story via (5) tabletop RPG mechanics*. And if you think WEG Star Wars is any different, let's hear it. Or the WEG Indiana Jones RPG, etc.
Or let's take MERP: no heavy exploration of deep themes, just an adventure game. But, lo and behold, it went so far as to emulate the capabilities of these characters by giving official statblocks for them. What it didn't do is provide mechanics so that game sessions would more naturally flow like Tolkien's stories - instead they flow like normal fantasy RPGs. TOR is a step in the direction of Tolkien though.
As for Conan, ironically the rule system that addresses underlying story dynamics more than other Conan games, 2d20 Conan gets panned in these halls whereas Conan games that play more straight (surface patina) get praised.

We can go through a wide range of traditional RPGs for specific IPs and we will find that (a) they mostly stick to surface patina level and (b) are not very good at getting the surface patina level right.
Or let's look at more generic genre games. CP 2020 is arguably the most successful straight cyberpunk game. It's largely an adventure game on the surface patina of the cyberpunk genre. It doesn't delve any deeper

How about successful online streamers like Mercer or Colville? Are their games more than largely surface patina? Do they use rules in their games that reach any deeper? Or is role-playing largely just fun adventure games?

So I guess my contention is that the kind of pushback I receive from some here is on grounds that appear to be absurd at face value.

Spoiler

Destiny: I have to take note that invoking Destiny under the aforementioned circumstances remains a legal move by RAW. And yes, such rights given to players or characters need to be explicitly qualified (restricted), just the way you'd limit how often a spell-caster can cast fireball, otherwise they're not. The only RAW restriction brought forth so far is GM veto, which is a very effective but vague restriction. Switching to RAI does not change that, nor does a "should" quotation that is merely tantamount to a guideline when a GM should exercise said veto powers.
Given that, I fail see how my characterization could be regarded as disingenious and I simply stand to it, absent of an actual RAW restriction that I am not aware of.

*Yes, the film version came first and novelization came later. Bite me.

@AK - No, I don't think any of those games seek to emulate blow by blow cinematic action in tabletop format the way you do. Some (mostly the older ones) like WEG d6 are trad "you are the hero" world-sim immersionist RPGs, the newer ones like Modiphius stuff add dramatist story-emulation elements at the cost of (some) immersion. Nothing I am familiar with resembles your particular schtick.

For instance, WEG d6 Star Wars does not give any plot protection, it only very weakly encourages players to play like the OT characters and IME in practice it plays a lot more like Rogue One - a story set in the Star Wars universe where everyone dies, because that's the natural consequence of their actions - than like the SW OT.

The advantage of this approach is immersion - when a PC in my WEG d6 game did something heroic, it actually felt heroic, because there was no plot monkey looking over their shoulder keeping them alive. If I know I (my PC) can be 'heroic' and definitely not die, it doesn't actually feel heroic.

Or in my 5e Red Hand of Doom game last Sunday, when the PCs were debating whether to try to take the bridge at Skull Gorge - they were worried, they were scared. If they went ahead then their PCs might die. This created actual dramatic tension, at a higher level than in plot-protected fiction. Like watching Game of Thrones characters not called Jon or Arya debating whether to do the heroic/risky thing.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101394Or let's take MERP: no heavy exploration of deep themes, just an adventure game. But, lo and behold, it went so far as to emulate the capabilities of these characters by giving official statblocks for them. What it didn't do is provide mechanics so that game sessions would more naturally flow like Tolkien's stories - instead they flow like normal fantasy RPGs. TOR is a step in the direction of Tolkien though.

Hey, you finally figured it out! MERP is a roleplaying game, and thus is incapable of simulating a novel. It had stat blocks for Aragorn and Gandalf and Sauron and whoever else because that's what you do...make stat blocks for the main characters in a property your RPG is based off of. Why in the fuck would you want mechanics that would force games to flow like a Tolkien story? That is AGAIN not an RPG but something else (*gasp* perhaps a storygame..?)

Your outright dismissal of the entire "Frodo was saved by divine grace" thing just proves you really have no concept of literature. I'm guessing you've seen a lot of action movies, wish you could exactly replicate one in an RPG, figured out it's impossible to do so, and began down some path to demonstrate how bad conventional RPGs are because instead of saving the universe your PCs all got killed by a lucky bowshot from a goblin.

QuoteAs for Conan, ironically the rule system that addresses underlying story dynamics more than other Conan games, 2d20 Conan gets panned in these halls whereas Conan games that play more straight (surface patina) get praised.

Because it sucks. The End.

Heh, this whole discussion has a parallel one with playing at mystery versus running an actual mystery.  It's part of why so much of the "how to run a mystery in an RPG" advice is so inconsistent and often counter-productive to what people are trying to do.  You'll get endless discussion of how to use the 3-clue rule, when the first thing you should do to run an actual mystery in an RPG is throw the 3-clue rule out the window.  

If you want to dress up in a trenchcoat and make world-weary comments to the dames, but the plot is just something you are guided through, then the 3-clue rule is fine.  The characters aren't solving anything.  The players aren't solving anything.  It's not a mystery.  It kind of looks like typical mysteries on the surface.  OTOH, to do an actual mystery, you have to abandon some of the things from books and film in order to arrive at ways that players can find subtle clues, miss some of them, and still have a chance to solve the blasted thing.  You'll need a lot more than 3 clues, and they'll need to be different than the clues you see in a typical mystery narrative.  The characters might fail.  The players might fail.

Just an example of how this distinction is not limited to typical heroic fantasy tropes.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101375Not because of mercy, not because of Frodo's willpower or purity of heart but because of heroic luck. Luck that the Frodo player had earned for himself earlier on for making the dangerous journey all without the help of fortune.

Except that NONE of the classic stories you so wish to emulate resolve the climax through heroic luck. That's one of the key tells between the classics and the shlock produced by imitators who have only a surface understanding of why the original was successful.

In the classics there may be some heroic luck in play in the form of evading gunfire and such, but that only exists to ensure the hero gets to the point of the story where THEIR CHOICES MATTER (including employing any Chekov's Guns in play). Luck isn't ultimately what saves a hero in any type of classical plot construction (what actual experts in the field call an Arch-plot because a causal series of events where a protagonist struggles against external forces in finite real time appeals to roughly 90% of the population).

What you are describing with a reliance on luck as the resolution mechanic is the hallmark of what is called an Antiplot; basically the same sort of postmodernist crap that appeals only to SJW types because it is the antithesis of the stories you're trying to emulate. Barely 5% of the population actually finds that sort of story satisfying (even many SJWs don't enjoy the "success and failure is nothing but happenstance, your actual skill or decisions don't matter because it all comes down to luck in the end"). More people enjoy Miniplot construction (which is focused more on internal psychological struggles of the protagonist) than enjoy Antiplot.

As to heroic luck as employed in Classical plot construction... we already have that; they're called Hit Points. Employed as written (instead of as pure meat) they are literally the Plot Armor that enables the protagonists to reach the critical points of the plot without succumbing to a random event along the way (though if they run out and plummet down the cliff on the way, clearly they won't be the protagonist when the story is recounted).

The reason you're not getting the reaction from people here you want is because what you're proposing doesn't accomplish what you want it to. Indeed, it does the opposite; turning moments of high dramatic tension where the character's choices actually matter to the outcome and turning them into accounting exercises where the character choices don't matter because whatever they choose can be papered over with happenstances.

You take what should be meaningful and make it meaningless.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101394Well, you're wrong about me being hung up on film, that is only one medium for fiction - except that it lends itself best for combat emulation due to information richness. We did take a look at the fight in the Frost Giant's Daughter a while back, if you recall, and it was fairly sparse info.

But let's have a look at some traditional RPGs:

Star Wars Saga, which I am currently in as a player. It (1) emulates the (2) surface patina of the (3) film version of a (4) story via (5) tabletop RPG mechanics*. And if you think WEG Star Wars is any different, let's hear it. Or the WEG Indiana Jones RPG, etc.
Or let's take MERP: no heavy exploration of deep themes, just an adventure game. But, lo and behold, it went so far as to emulate the capabilities of these characters by giving official statblocks for them. What it didn't do is provide mechanics so that game sessions would more naturally flow like Tolkien's stories - instead they flow like normal fantasy RPGs. TOR is a step in the direction of Tolkien though.
As for Conan, ironically the rule system that addresses underlying story dynamics more than other Conan games, 2d20 Conan gets panned in these halls whereas Conan games that play more straight (surface patina) get praised.

We can go through a wide range of traditional RPGs for specific IPs and we will find that (a) they mostly stick to surface patina level and (b) are not very good at getting the surface patina level right.
Or let's look at more generic genre games. CP 2020 is arguably the most successful straight cyberpunk game. It's largely an adventure game on the surface patina of the cyberpunk genre. It doesn't delve any deeper

How about successful online streamers like Mercer or Colville? Are their games more than largely surface patina? Do they use rules in their games that reach any deeper? Or is role-playing largely just fun adventure games?

So I guess my contention is that the kind of pushback I receive from some here is on grounds that appear to be absurd at face value.

I agree with you that traditional RPGs are historically bad at emulating stories (there's a reason narrative RPGs became a thing somewhere along the road). And that's exactly the argument folks are defending here - in trying to justify LotR story in (traditional) RPG terms, you're missing the point entirely. These games were not design for this. Period.

Or, see things this way: traditional RPGs are too far into the "Simulationist" and/or "Gamist" poles to make sense from a story/narrative angle. The same way games like Fiasco or Hillfolk or Bluebeard's Bride are too much on the "Narrative" pole and may not make sense from other angles.

Quote from: S'mon;1101401@AK - No, I don't think any of those games seek to emulate blow by blow cinematic action in tabletop format the way you do.

But nobody has made that claim. I have been listing games that merely capture the surface patina of the thing they're emulating to refute the relevance of whether the world was save by Frodo's mercy or not. If we're fine with RPGs being primarily about the adventuring part, then it's valid to interpret the climax of LotR as Frodo having luck that Gollum slipped after stealing the ring. And that in turn ties into Failing Forward, in that case failing forward towards the campaign conclusion.

Quote from: S'mon;1101401Some (mostly the older ones) like WEG d6 are trad "you are the hero" world-sim immersionist RPGs, the newer ones like Modiphius stuff add dramatist story-emulation elements at the cost of (some) immersion.

Immersion is quite personal and mine isn't very fragile in that regard. It doesn't get lost when I have to juggle some metacurrency, just as it doesn't get lost when I calculate whether it's advantageous to do a full Power Strike or some other Feat/Talent. I don't lose my immersion when I ask a buddy to pass a bag of crisps, nor when I have to take a bathroom break during an entertaining movie.

It does get lost however when I have to enter a dungeon with a backpack full of healing potions.

Quote from: S'mon;1101401For instance, WEG d6 Star Wars does not give any plot protection, it only very weakly encourages players to play like the OT characters and IME in practice it plays a lot more like Rogue One - a story set in the Star Wars universe where everyone dies, because that's the natural consequence of their actions - than like the SW OT.

And the existence and commercial success of FFG Star Wars underscores that there is a crowd of gamers who enjoy games in which the PCs are more special than that. Saved by "dumb luck".

Quote from: S'mon;1101401The advantage of this approach is immersion - when a PC in my WEG d6 game did something heroic, it actually felt heroic, because there was no plot monkey looking over their shoulder keeping them alive. If I know I (my PC) can be 'heroic' and definitely not die, it doesn't actually feel heroic.

In the example I had given, Frodo had 1 Fate Point (in the alternative scenario 2 Fate Points). Note that in the alternative scenario Frodo either had died OR the Gollum would have not slipped, if the Frodo PC didn't have 2 Fate Points.
In FFG Star Wars, PCs can die as well, I believe.  

Note furthermore that it's not as black and white as some make it out to be. It's not "EITHER the PC has no plot protection OR he cannot die, ever". Just as it's not "Either you play a loose sandbox or you're a wanna-be auteur shitty railroad GM that wants to shove an entire script down his player's throat".
First of all there's many degrees inbetween. And secondly, there can be variation from scene-to-scene.

Quote from: S'mon;1101401Or in my 5e Red Hand of Doom game last Sunday, when the PCs were debating whether to try to take the bridge at Skull Gorge - they were worried, they were scared. If they went ahead then their PCs might die. This created actual dramatic tension, at a higher level than in plot-protected fiction. Like watching Game of Thrones characters not called Jon or Arya debating whether to do the heroic/risky thing.

It's not just that you can vary plot protection from scene-to-scene, doing so even enables you to run higher risk encounters after having run a string of low risk encounters.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101373Okay, I don't understand the narrative focus when i said earlier: "Is this superficial? Well, yeah. I'm playing role-playing games primarily for the adventure, not for heavy themes, so that's my focus in this thread."
Maybe I should have been driving this point home more: if we revise the RPGs published for the Middle-Earth setting, we find that they all pretty much center around the adventuring and not around philosophical themes like the power of mercy (yes, I include TOR here). What's particularly confusing is that somebody else already pointed out that there is a difference in medium and P&P RPGs has in many regards the depth of improv theatre. So what's the point?

As a consequence and since I primarily play fantasy for the journey and the adventure (and it seems to me that most fantasy gamers are the same though I guess this is going to prompt a huge discussion of how my attitude is atypical), my focus is on emulating the adventure side of LOTR. To that end (and here's where we connect to fail forward), the question has arisen of how the adventure side of the ending of LOTR -the main protagonist fails his crucial test, the pivotal roll of the game to resist the ring before its impending destruction and STILL the campaign doesn't end in complete desaster as Sauron gets evaporated after all- could work out satisfyingly in a fantasy adventure game. Or if at all!

The scene at Mount Doom is a poor example. For starters, no one could resist the Ring in the heart of Sauron's realm. No dice roll required. Autofail. It was always a "hopeless" quest in that sense.

Quote from: Tolkien"Gandalf put his hand on Pippin's head. "There never was much hope," he answered. "Just a fool's hope, as I have been told."

QuoteSo then the question is if there is a path between that and "the pivotal test fails, the world succumbs to darkness" that could still be satisfying, at least for a range of players. And that middle road would probably have to draw on Success-at-a-Cost. Which is in turn where heroic luck could come in (but doesn't have to), just as Gollum slipped in his moment of triumph and then died.

In such a situation, it was divine fiat, or the will of Illuvatar that events turned out the way they did. Not in the direct sense of a godhand descending from the clouds to push gollum in, but the very fabric of existence rewards pity and mercy in the final tally.

The problem here is that you are trying to interpret a complex static narrative into game mechanics, and that just doesn't work. There are no dice rolls to interpret. Frodo didn't fail a will save, gollum didn't roll to attack to bite his hand, and gollum didn't fail a dex check to avoid falling into the crack of doom.
Tolkien wrote it that way.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101375Not because of mercy, not because of Frodo's willpower or purity of heart but because of heroic luck. Luck that the Frodo player had earned for himself earlier on for making the dangerous journey all without the help of fortune.

Holy fucking missing the point, Batman. You're not playing Lord of the Rings at that point. You've hollowed it out, like Buffalo Bill wearing a woman-skin-suit.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1101425Holy fucking missing the point, Batman. You're not playing Lord of the Rings at that point. You've hollowed it out, like Buffalo Bill wearing a woman-skin-suit.

At this point I'm not sure if he's just poorly read on the subject of story structure in general (and Lord of the Rings in particular) or if he's just one of the less than 5% who thinks antiplot is superior to classical plot construction and doesn't get that he's the critical failure on a d20 roll in terms of preferences.

To Alexander; I'm going to recommend a book to you... "Story: Style, Structure, Substance and the Principles of Screenwriting" by Robert McKee. If you've ever seen a list of the people who've taken his course on screenwriting, it's practically a who's who of the top writers in Hollywood and this is the book they read for his class on how to do it.

If you REALLY want to make a game based off emulating what you see in stories, I recommend you start by looking at the heart of how those stories are composed and structured so you can actually build something that's not borderline offensive to 90+% of your potential audience.

Quote from: Brad;1101387At this point it sounds like he's advocating for a reality TV show with fantasy characters: scripted improv with a manufactured story arcs and conflict, with a definitive resolution.

Oooh, like Critical Role!

Quote from: Zalman;1101431Oooh, like Critical Role!

Or any of the many many "Frustrated Author" GMs I've encountered over the years who have a particular story they want to tell and see the players as a captive audience for it. Only this one wants official rules to make his ignoring anything that might derail his 'grand epic' okay and 'by the book' instead of the borderline dick move it's generally seen as in the broader RPG community.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1101421But nobody has made that claim. I have been listing games that merely capture the surface patina of the thing they're emulating to refute the relevance of whether the world was save by Frodo's mercy or not.

Do we agree that you cannot successfully recreate LoTR as an RPG?

(BTW this is one reason I tend to take my RPGing inspiration more from low quality pulp fiction than from the classics. The kind of pulp adventures that really don't say anything about life/the human condition are way more emulatable than even REH's Conan, never mind LoTR.)

Quote from: Chris24601;1101410Except that NONE of the classic stories you so wish to emulate

Genrestory Emulation is PbtA's thing though, not mine. In Genreworld Emulation, however, story is still emerging from interactions with the game world, except there is a limited exception handling mechanism. Did you read the example of play that I posted?
Anyway, with that misunderstanding cleared up, I feel the rest of both your posts is kinda invalid, I'm afraid. It's not about emulating story structure through rules.

Quote from: Itachi;1101420I agree with you that traditional RPGs are historically bad at emulating stories (there's a reason narrative RPGs became a thing somewhere along the road). And that's exactly the argument folks are defending here - in trying to justify LotR story in (traditional) RPG terms, you're missing the point entirely. These games were not design for this. Period.

Actually, I have just been recommended hitpoints as a mechanic for emulating heroic luck.
Furthermore, I invite everyone to listen to this podcast here and witness how much some members of this forum enjoy faithfulness to the world of Tolkien in a traditional game. "I found this to be very good at emulating the trilogy [...] it felt like I was in a new story in Middle Earth."

These are small steps towards genresim.

Quote from: Itachi;1101420Or, see things this way: traditional RPGs are too far into the "Simulationist" and/or "Gamist" poles to make sense from a story/narrative angle. The same way games like Fiasco or Hillfolk or Bluebeard's Bride are too much on the "Narrative" pole and may not make sense from other angles.

So this seems to be a common misunderstanding. I encourage you and Chris and Ratman to take another look at the example of play I provided. Fate isn't used to shape story in a narrativist sense. The whole thing plays very traditionally EXCEPT you have a limited exception handling mechanism in the form of heroic luck which is totally compliant with heroic fantasy, including LotR and its climax. Most importantly: story is still emergent from interactions with the game world.

And I must come back to what started the whole conversation: the question if failing a pivotal roll and the world not going up in flames could be implemented viably (and genre-faithful) in a RPG and if yes, how so? After some thinking my answer was that one way I could see it working was through Success-at-a-Cost and another way was what I provided in the example of play - passing the challenge of reaching the climax without relying on fortune's help.