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 LIVE! 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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)
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="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6345426" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>The presentation of CaW/CaS was condescending and slanted, whether the OP consciously intended it to be so or not. </p><p></p><p> Then perhaps an alternative way of expressing the idea, since CaW/CaS carries those connotations and overtones of incivility conceived in anger & resentment?</p><p></p><p>Let's try to identify the actual idea, while scrubbing it of anything of that nature:</p><p></p><p>The theory seems to be that there are exactly two, distinct, mutually incompatible ways to play D&D. </p><p></p><p>One approaches conflict in an anything-goes manner that views rules, genre conventions, and anything else that stands between the player and victory, as things to be somehow gotten around or leveraged in that pursuit of victory. </p><p></p><p>The other approaches in-game conflicts in the context of rules & genre conventions, and seeks to remain inside the guidelines implied by each.</p><p></p><p>If that were true, what are the implications:</p><p></p><p>What would a game have to do to allow play in first style? Well, it doesn't really have to do much, since the player will act in defiance of anything the game lays down, be it rules, guidelines, themes, or whatever, when doing so is necessary in his view to secure success. </p><p></p><p>What would a game have to do to allow play in the second style? Well, it also wouldn't need much, it would just have to have clear, functional rules, and be clear on it's intended genre and themes (or lack thereof, leaving them to the GM, as the case may be). That way players wouldn't be left guessing what the 'point' of the game was.</p><p></p><p>What could a game do to 'force' the first style of play, even on players who prefer the second? A few things: Excessive lethality, for instance, would cause players to focus on victory (and thus survival) over other consideration, because those other considerations can't really be addressed without a character. Unclear or incomplete rules would force the DM to resort to frequent judgement calls, making 'gaming the DM' a needful strategy. On the other extreme, very detailed and inflexible rules could be designed to 'reward system mastery,' again, making effectiveness trump other factors when making decisions.</p><p></p><p>What could a game do to 'force' the second style of play, even on players who prefer the second? Not much, since players preferring the first style are willing to go outside the rules as presented if need be. About the closest a game could come would be making following the rules and cleaving to genre convention the optimal path to victory in most cases. Which is not so much forcing the second style as disguising the first style as the second.</p><p></p><p></p><p>And, what if there is a continuum between the two? What difference does that make to the theory? </p><p></p><p>It /would/ imply that the styles are not mutually exclusive, and therefor a game could (perhaps should) support both rather than cater to one or the other.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6345426, member: 996"] The presentation of CaW/CaS was condescending and slanted, whether the OP consciously intended it to be so or not. Then perhaps an alternative way of expressing the idea, since CaW/CaS carries those connotations and overtones of incivility conceived in anger & resentment? Let's try to identify the actual idea, while scrubbing it of anything of that nature: The theory seems to be that there are exactly two, distinct, mutually incompatible ways to play D&D. One approaches conflict in an anything-goes manner that views rules, genre conventions, and anything else that stands between the player and victory, as things to be somehow gotten around or leveraged in that pursuit of victory. The other approaches in-game conflicts in the context of rules & genre conventions, and seeks to remain inside the guidelines implied by each. If that were true, what are the implications: What would a game have to do to allow play in first style? Well, it doesn't really have to do much, since the player will act in defiance of anything the game lays down, be it rules, guidelines, themes, or whatever, when doing so is necessary in his view to secure success. What would a game have to do to allow play in the second style? Well, it also wouldn't need much, it would just have to have clear, functional rules, and be clear on it's intended genre and themes (or lack thereof, leaving them to the GM, as the case may be). That way players wouldn't be left guessing what the 'point' of the game was. What could a game do to 'force' the first style of play, even on players who prefer the second? A few things: Excessive lethality, for instance, would cause players to focus on victory (and thus survival) over other consideration, because those other considerations can't really be addressed without a character. Unclear or incomplete rules would force the DM to resort to frequent judgement calls, making 'gaming the DM' a needful strategy. On the other extreme, very detailed and inflexible rules could be designed to 'reward system mastery,' again, making effectiveness trump other factors when making decisions. What could a game do to 'force' the second style of play, even on players who prefer the second? Not much, since players preferring the first style are willing to go outside the rules as presented if need be. About the closest a game could come would be making following the rules and cleaving to genre convention the optimal path to victory in most cases. Which is not so much forcing the second style as disguising the first style as the second. And, what if there is a continuum between the two? What difference does that make to the theory? It /would/ imply that the styles are not mutually exclusive, and therefor a game could (perhaps should) support both rather than cater to one or the other. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Interesting Decisions vs Wish Fulfillment (from Pulsipher)
Top