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
Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
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: 7496311" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>From the Basic PDF, p 3:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>1. The DM describes the environment.</strong> The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>2. The players describe what they want to do.</strong> . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"><strong>3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.</strong> Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.</p><p></p><p>So the first thing I notice about this is that it is incomplete: what happens if the result of the adjudication doesn't lead to a decision point? Does that mean the game is over?</p><p></p><p>The second thing I notice is another element of incompleteness: taken literally, it implies that players are only ever allowed to declare actions for their PCs in relation to the environment the GM describes, but I've never played a RPG that operates under that constraint and can't imagine doing so. For instance, in every RPG I've ever played, Player A is fully entitled to ask Player B "Are you (ie your PC) wearing a hat? If you are, can I (ie my PC) borrow it?" And Player B is fully entitled to answer "Yes, I am, and yes, you can - I pass my cap to A!"</p><p></p><p>This triggers step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.</p><p></p><p>Another type of action which is part of many RPGs is the player declaring something that does not engage the immediate environment but something more spiritual or ethereal: "I remember all the dead we left behind us, and pray for their souls." Or "I try to see if I can remember the secret number that the sage told us when we met her months ago!" These appear to trigger step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described.</p><p></p><p>Another thing that I notice is that, read literally, <em>the players never establish anything about the game</em>. Read literally, all the players ever do is <em>make suggestions</em> about what might happen in the shared fiction - "I want to walk across the room and open the door" - but what actually happens in the fiction is <em>always</em> the GM's decision, with the GM perhaps using dice to manage this.</p><p></p><p>If that's true, then the other 100 pages of rules are all just suggestions to the GM as to how s/he might exercise his/her power to make those decisions. But I can't imagine <em>anyone</em> actually playing 5e that way. To do so would make a complete farce of most of the rules for PC-building (especially all the equipment and spell descriptions), and would contradict all the rules in the sections on ability checks and combat.</p><p></p><p>So once we recognise that the description of step 2 is, taken literally, false; then we can also see that step 3, taken literally, is probably false as well. I find it almost impossible to imagine a table in which <em>all</em> results of declared actions are narrated <em>only</em> by the GM. Here's just one example:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">GM: You see an owlbear.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Player [of a wizard who has prepared Magic Missile and has some unused spell slots]: I blast it with a Magic Missile.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">GM: OK, roll for damage.</p><p></p><p>I reckon stuff like that happens <em>all the time</em> at 5e tables; and in that sort of episode, the player is narrating a result - namely, that the owlbear has been blasted with a Magic Missile - and the player is licensed to do so by the rules for spell preparation, spell casting and the text of the Magic Missile spell which says that "[e]ach dart hits a creature of your choice".</p><p></p><p> [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s claim that it is "houseruling" and "non-traditional" for a player to narrate results is without foundation.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7496311, member: 42582"] From the Basic PDF, p 3: [indent]The play of the Dungeons & Dragons game unfolds according to this basic pattern. [B]1. The DM describes the environment.[/B] The DM tells the players where their adventurers are and what's around them, presenting the basic scope of options that present themselves . . . [B]2. The players describe what they want to do.[/B] . . . Sometimes, resolving a task is easy. If an adventurer wants to walk across a room and open a door, the DM might just say that the door opens and describe what lies beyond. But the door might be locked, the floor might hide a deadly trap, or some other circumstance might make it challenging for an adventurer to complete a task. In those cases, the DM decides what happens, often relying on the roll of a die to determine the results of an action. [B]3. The DM narrates the results of the adventurers' actions.[/B] Describing the results often leads to another decision point, which brings the flow of the game right back to step 1.[/indent] So the first thing I notice about this is that it is incomplete: what happens if the result of the adjudication doesn't lead to a decision point? Does that mean the game is over? The second thing I notice is another element of incompleteness: taken literally, it implies that players are only ever allowed to declare actions for their PCs in relation to the environment the GM describes, but I've never played a RPG that operates under that constraint and can't imagine doing so. For instance, in every RPG I've ever played, Player A is fully entitled to ask Player B "Are you (ie your PC) wearing a hat? If you are, can I (ie my PC) borrow it?" And Player B is fully entitled to answer "Yes, I am, and yes, you can - I pass my cap to A!" This triggers step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described. Another type of action which is part of many RPGs is the player declaring something that does not engage the immediate environment but something more spiritual or ethereal: "I remember all the dead we left behind us, and pray for their souls." Or "I try to see if I can remember the secret number that the sage told us when we met her months ago!" These appear to trigger step 2 without being preceded by step 1 as described. Another thing that I notice is that, read literally, [I]the players never establish anything about the game[/I]. Read literally, all the players ever do is [I]make suggestions[/I] about what might happen in the shared fiction - "I want to walk across the room and open the door" - but what actually happens in the fiction is [I]always[/I] the GM's decision, with the GM perhaps using dice to manage this. If that's true, then the other 100 pages of rules are all just suggestions to the GM as to how s/he might exercise his/her power to make those decisions. But I can't imagine [I]anyone[/I] actually playing 5e that way. To do so would make a complete farce of most of the rules for PC-building (especially all the equipment and spell descriptions), and would contradict all the rules in the sections on ability checks and combat. So once we recognise that the description of step 2 is, taken literally, false; then we can also see that step 3, taken literally, is probably false as well. I find it almost impossible to imagine a table in which [I]all[/I] results of declared actions are narrated [I]only[/I] by the GM. Here's just one example: [indent]GM: You see an owlbear. Player [of a wizard who has prepared Magic Missile and has some unused spell slots]: I blast it with a Magic Missile. GM: OK, roll for damage.[/indent] I reckon stuff like that happens [I]all the time[/I] at 5e tables; and in that sort of episode, the player is narrating a result - namely, that the owlbear has been blasted with a Magic Missile - and the player is licensed to do so by the rules for spell preparation, spell casting and the text of the Magic Missile spell which says that "[e]ach dart hits a creature of your choice". [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION]'s claim that it is "houseruling" and "non-traditional" for a player to narrate results is without foundation. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
Top