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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
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="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5960497" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>Illusionism, and the immersion for which it is generally deployed, are at odds with the clear and transparent design approach of 4E. This is really the heart of the "irreconcilable difference" expressed in the OP and some of the more forceful rebuttals for and against it. You can have more abstraction or less abstraction, more tactical options or more simple rules, more complex social interactions or more simple ones, etc. For example, no one really dislikes "balance". A lot of people do dislike "balance that destroys the illusion of difference." Such issues can be handled by a modular game. However, you can't simultaneously pull back the curtain and also carefully keep it shut. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> </p><p> </p><p>So for Next to succeed on that particular issue, it has to walk some kind of precarious tightrope, alternately pulling back the curtain selectively while pretending not to do the very thing it is doing in other places. This is the part that I'm not sure can be pulled off. It is akin to simultaneously running a "magician" convention where half the events are teaching you to be a magician and the other half are performing the shows. How do you keep people who like the illusion from wandering across the hall to see the curtain pulled back in detail? How do you at the same time tell the people that want to be magicians where to go to get the details without encouraging other people to look?</p><p> </p><p>The original answer was that the DM was the magician, while all the players were "audience". They could come up on stage and get cut in half, but not know the trick. This was obviously always in tension in a group game, and has been a bone of contention from the get go. Not least of all, it ignores the fact that some DMs like illusionism and some players hate it. </p><p> </p><p>I don't think that this issue can be solved, but maybe I'm suffering from an atypical surge of pessimism. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /> <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite9" alt=":eek:" title="Eek! :eek:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":eek:" /> Thus my solution is to basically run two strands through Next, one dedicated to the immersionists dedicated to clear narrative design, with some elements clearly called out for each style, but sharing a lot of other elements where they can, and readily splitting where they cannot.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5960497, member: 54877"] Illusionism, and the immersion for which it is generally deployed, are at odds with the clear and transparent design approach of 4E. This is really the heart of the "irreconcilable difference" expressed in the OP and some of the more forceful rebuttals for and against it. You can have more abstraction or less abstraction, more tactical options or more simple rules, more complex social interactions or more simple ones, etc. For example, no one really dislikes "balance". A lot of people do dislike "balance that destroys the illusion of difference." Such issues can be handled by a modular game. However, you can't simultaneously pull back the curtain and also carefully keep it shut. :D So for Next to succeed on that particular issue, it has to walk some kind of precarious tightrope, alternately pulling back the curtain selectively while pretending not to do the very thing it is doing in other places. This is the part that I'm not sure can be pulled off. It is akin to simultaneously running a "magician" convention where half the events are teaching you to be a magician and the other half are performing the shows. How do you keep people who like the illusion from wandering across the hall to see the curtain pulled back in detail? How do you at the same time tell the people that want to be magicians where to go to get the details without encouraging other people to look? The original answer was that the DM was the magician, while all the players were "audience". They could come up on stage and get cut in half, but not know the trick. This was obviously always in tension in a group game, and has been a bone of contention from the get go. Not least of all, it ignores the fact that some DMs like illusionism and some players hate it. I don't think that this issue can be solved, but maybe I'm suffering from an atypical surge of pessimism. :D :o Thus my solution is to basically run two strands through Next, one dedicated to the immersionists dedicated to clear narrative design, with some elements clearly called out for each style, but sharing a lot of other elements where they can, and readily splitting where they cannot. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
Top