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
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
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="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7754689" data-attributes="member: 29398"><p>And a strong incentive to metagame, as a probably unintended side effect.</p><p></p><p>On first glance that's actually a cool-sounding system. But I stop and think about the game I play in and - knowing the people involved - how it'd work there if implemented. There's 6 players (plus the DM). Two of them would for sure find reasons to make bonds only with each other about 95% of the time and would find a way to fulfill them every time, or at least say they were fulfilled. Another two would to a lesser extent do likewise - they'd almost always bond with each other but the fulfillment would be more genuine. And the remaining two - of which I'd be one - would be kinda stuck, as our characters don't often get along that well. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>I do like the three group questions. Were it me, of course, I'd add a corollary question to each one: who (as PC) actually took part in that activity e.g. did we all help in finding that significant treasure or was it just done by the Rogue on her own?</p><p></p><p>Until you don't, or can't, because your PC has died or otherwise been rendered unfit to continue.</p><p></p><p>Time passes and is marked off, but the "speed" of that time passage is up to the players. If they want to do every little bit of downtime activity in great detail that next three game-time weeks will take a lot longer to play out at the table than if they just tell me "we take the next three weeks off for some R&R".</p><p></p><p>Where I'm talking about what I'm familiar with: the modules as designed.</p><p></p><p>For these purposes, neither is necessary. A simple basic read-over of the rulebooks (the first round) and some of the modules tells me all I need to know: the game is, at its root, still out to kill the PCs.</p><p></p><p>Survival is a goal that must be achieved before any other goal even becomes relevant.</p><p></p><p>Knowing the type of games you like I can see why you'd say this - but remember you're looking at it through your fiction-coloured glasses. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p><p></p><p>One could say that "to impact the fiction" is more or less the goal of any RPG...except unless the system does not allow PC death at all it's always a secondary goal to survival. Which I guess means I'd better ask: do you allow PC death in your games that the player doesn't see coming and-or hasn't pre-approved?</p><p></p><p>If yes, we can carry on.</p><p></p><p>If no, we might as well quit here because I'm talking about apples while you're talking about motorboats.</p><p></p><p>Yes, I already mentioned that 4e as designed makes it easier for the PCs to survive. But there's a yawning gulf between easier (the game's out to kill you but it probably won't) and guaranteed (the game can't kill you unless you let it, or at all).</p><p></p><p>As soon as the game can kill your PC without your-as-player pre-approval, the basic goal is survival.</p><p></p><p>This is true of all editions. In 1e arcane casters were expected to stay well clear of the heat, for example.</p><p></p><p>But I've seen far too many supposedly rough tough PCs head for cover when danger nears and leave their less-sturdy comrades to take the heat to not consider it a problem.</p><p></p><p>The encounter design in 4e, from what I've seen of it through running various modules, is generally quite good; and it does bring the heat and it does try to kill PCs. A DM running those encounters in such a way as to spare the PCs is kinda letting the game down.</p><p></p><p>I'm aware that's the default, and it's one of the major reasons I would never run 4e as written. There's a whole bunch of very logical and organic in-game reasons* why the characters in a party would, over time, tend towards not always being the same level; and I don't want to arbitrarily over-write that.</p><p></p><p>* - some of which can cause problems of their own, which are what I'd rather be trying to solve</p><p></p><p>War game, sport game, whatever: if your character doesn't contribute it shouldn't get xp.</p><p></p><p>And what I'm saying, I suppose, is that in a way over-cautious (i.e. cowardly) gaming *is* a power-gaming tactic, only way more passive-aggressive than how the term is usually applied. She who fights and runs away lives to fight another day...even if in her running away she's left her (now ex-)companions to take the heat for her and maybe even get killed off.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7754689, member: 29398"] And a strong incentive to metagame, as a probably unintended side effect. On first glance that's actually a cool-sounding system. But I stop and think about the game I play in and - knowing the people involved - how it'd work there if implemented. There's 6 players (plus the DM). Two of them would for sure find reasons to make bonds only with each other about 95% of the time and would find a way to fulfill them every time, or at least say they were fulfilled. Another two would to a lesser extent do likewise - they'd almost always bond with each other but the fulfillment would be more genuine. And the remaining two - of which I'd be one - would be kinda stuck, as our characters don't often get along that well. :) I do like the three group questions. Were it me, of course, I'd add a corollary question to each one: who (as PC) actually took part in that activity e.g. did we all help in finding that significant treasure or was it just done by the Rogue on her own? Until you don't, or can't, because your PC has died or otherwise been rendered unfit to continue. Time passes and is marked off, but the "speed" of that time passage is up to the players. If they want to do every little bit of downtime activity in great detail that next three game-time weeks will take a lot longer to play out at the table than if they just tell me "we take the next three weeks off for some R&R". Where I'm talking about what I'm familiar with: the modules as designed. For these purposes, neither is necessary. A simple basic read-over of the rulebooks (the first round) and some of the modules tells me all I need to know: the game is, at its root, still out to kill the PCs. Survival is a goal that must be achieved before any other goal even becomes relevant. Knowing the type of games you like I can see why you'd say this - but remember you're looking at it through your fiction-coloured glasses. :) One could say that "to impact the fiction" is more or less the goal of any RPG...except unless the system does not allow PC death at all it's always a secondary goal to survival. Which I guess means I'd better ask: do you allow PC death in your games that the player doesn't see coming and-or hasn't pre-approved? If yes, we can carry on. If no, we might as well quit here because I'm talking about apples while you're talking about motorboats. Yes, I already mentioned that 4e as designed makes it easier for the PCs to survive. But there's a yawning gulf between easier (the game's out to kill you but it probably won't) and guaranteed (the game can't kill you unless you let it, or at all). As soon as the game can kill your PC without your-as-player pre-approval, the basic goal is survival. This is true of all editions. In 1e arcane casters were expected to stay well clear of the heat, for example. But I've seen far too many supposedly rough tough PCs head for cover when danger nears and leave their less-sturdy comrades to take the heat to not consider it a problem. The encounter design in 4e, from what I've seen of it through running various modules, is generally quite good; and it does bring the heat and it does try to kill PCs. A DM running those encounters in such a way as to spare the PCs is kinda letting the game down. I'm aware that's the default, and it's one of the major reasons I would never run 4e as written. There's a whole bunch of very logical and organic in-game reasons* why the characters in a party would, over time, tend towards not always being the same level; and I don't want to arbitrarily over-write that. * - some of which can cause problems of their own, which are what I'd rather be trying to solve War game, sport game, whatever: if your character doesn't contribute it shouldn't get xp. And what I'm saying, I suppose, is that in a way over-cautious (i.e. cowardly) gaming *is* a power-gaming tactic, only way more passive-aggressive than how the term is usually applied. She who fights and runs away lives to fight another day...even if in her running away she's left her (now ex-)companions to take the heat for her and maybe even get killed off. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Everybody Cheats?
Top