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
Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?
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: 5798263" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Here are the passages in my first two passages on this issue in this thread:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no criticism here. There is an example of the contrast between simulationist and narrativist priorities, and a contrast of playstyles for which "timeline pressure" may or may not work as a solution to the 15 minute adventuring day.</p><p></p><p>As I said in the first of these two posts, for those who (i) want the passive "opponent" option (eg ruins exploration), and/or (ii) want the "failures only happen onstage" option, then the 15-minute day <em>is</em> a rules problem - not a problem of scenario design. To fix it, you need to change the rules. In Rolemaster, I've adopted various rules changes over the years - one was to have everyone play spellcasters (a de facto PC build rules changes), another was to ensure that fighters play as strongly as nova-ing spellcasters. 4e adopts a different rules change, namely, reducing in various ways the availability and the effectiveness of nova-ing.</p><p></p><p>The second post talks explicitly about what I want out of a game, and says in a playstyle according to which framing narratively intense scenes is allowed to override simulationist concerns, the hero will arrive "just in time". Obviously that is not a universal playstyle. But it is one for which the timeline "fix" to the 15 minute day won't work. Luckily, a range of other fixes - I myself have used 3 over the years, and I'm sure they are not the only ones possible - can be usd.</p><p></p><p>You then started posting, telling me that my approach makes long term consequences impossible. Which, for the various reasons I have given, is not true - unless by long term consequences you mean strategic/opeational consequences - but the sort of playstyle I am talking about obviously does not prioritise those sorts of consequences.</p><p></p><p>My example was to contrast playstyles. I even linked to the Edwards essay that I quoted, which makes it clear - if the heading that I quoted didn't make it clear, although I personally think it is pretty unambiguous - that he is contrasting playstyles (or, as he calls them, "player priorities"). He is contrasting how a simulationist and a narrativist playstyle would resolve the "getting there on time" issue. A simulationist would care about distance and time - the ingame causal constraints. A narrativist approach is more likely to focus on the metagame ("here comes the climax!"). Keeping track of time and distance is bound up in those two approaches. The simulationist is likely to keep track of them - in the sort of way that Gygax talks about in his DMG - precisely because the simulationinst wants those considerations to settle the matter. The narativist is likely to track those sorts of things far more loosely - along the lines of the Maelstrom Storytelling quote that I posted upthread - precisely because the narrativist doesn't care about them as much, and is not relying upon them to constrain scene extrapolation/transition.</p><p></p><p>So the comparison in playstyles in fact does not presuppose that the time and distance are known. Part of the comparison is <em>whether or not the players of the game care about knowing them</em>.</p><p></p><p>I don't really know what your point is. And I'm not changing <em>my </em> subject. My subject continues to be what I have consistently posted upthread - that the timeline "fix" for the 15 minute day isn't a fix for those who (i) want passive scenarios, and/or (ii) don't want failure to occur offscreen. Or, to put generalise, it is a fix for some playstyles (which are probably also playstyles for which Gygax's timekeeping advice is relevant) but not others.</p><p></p><p>OK. But now who do you think runs games this way? I took it to be obvious that in a "no failure on stage" game, at least one of the following is kept flexible/underdetermined - the time, or the distance. Keeping the time flexibile can be done as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] suggested above, and as was implicit in my quote above from Paul Czege - namely, leaving the NPCs' plans loose in your mind, to enable them to be retrofitted to the desired framings and conflicts. It can also be done by keeping the narration of the PCs' activities flexible - "You hurry across town, making terrific time" - is that 10 minutes or 15 minutes? We don't need to know, provided that action resolution mechanics aren't involved - this is why spell durations in pre-4e D&D, Rolemaster and other fantasy games aren't so good for this sort of playstyle, because they <em>can</em> require keeping track of durations down to the last few minutes.</p><p></p><p>Alternatively, you can keep the distance flexible - which was part of the point of the quote from Maelstrom Storytelling above.</p><p></p><p>Of course, if you use simulationist techniques in your game - of tracking time and distance in a way that sets pre-determined limits on who can be where when - then you will <em>have</em> to determine who gets where in accordane with those limits set by those techniques! My point was that, for those running a game using other techniques, of the sort I've been talking about, "fixes" for the 15 minute day that rely upon the simulationist techniques - like timelines - won't work.</p><p></p><p>Well, I would call it cheating, but I have very strong views about the GM not suspending the action resolution mechanics.</p><p></p><p>But I have to say - if you think that in talking about narrativist rather than simulationist techniques, you think I am talking about measuring all the times and distances precisely and then ignoring them, then I get the impression that you don't really have a great familiarity with how non-simulationinst techniques work.</p><p></p><p>On the other hand, I now have a better idea of why you think my game must be crap - because you're envisaging a game which is just like yours, except from time to time we cheat and rewrite things to get the desired narrative outcome! And yes, that would be a crappy game. The whole point of the "Forge revolution" in mechanics has been to design games which use different techniques for scene framing and action resolution, so that narrativist concerns can trump simulationist ones without having to cheat and rewrite in the way that you seem to be envisaging. </p><p></p><p>To allude back to the Maelstrom Storytelling quote - if, in playing the game, you <em>have</em> to know how wide the cavern is, or how strong the wind is that the GM is narrating as making the jump a difficult one, or whether it did take 10 or 15 minutes to get across the city, then the sort of techniques I'm describing in this and my earlier posts won't be for you. Which is fine. Like I said at the start, I'm not criticising anyone. I'm talking about what sorts of "fixes" will work for what sorts of playstyles.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5798263, member: 42582"] Here are the passages in my first two passages on this issue in this thread: There is no criticism here. There is an example of the contrast between simulationist and narrativist priorities, and a contrast of playstyles for which "timeline pressure" may or may not work as a solution to the 15 minute adventuring day. As I said in the first of these two posts, for those who (i) want the passive "opponent" option (eg ruins exploration), and/or (ii) want the "failures only happen onstage" option, then the 15-minute day [I]is[/I] a rules problem - not a problem of scenario design. To fix it, you need to change the rules. In Rolemaster, I've adopted various rules changes over the years - one was to have everyone play spellcasters (a de facto PC build rules changes), another was to ensure that fighters play as strongly as nova-ing spellcasters. 4e adopts a different rules change, namely, reducing in various ways the availability and the effectiveness of nova-ing. The second post talks explicitly about what I want out of a game, and says in a playstyle according to which framing narratively intense scenes is allowed to override simulationist concerns, the hero will arrive "just in time". Obviously that is not a universal playstyle. But it is one for which the timeline "fix" to the 15 minute day won't work. Luckily, a range of other fixes - I myself have used 3 over the years, and I'm sure they are not the only ones possible - can be usd. You then started posting, telling me that my approach makes long term consequences impossible. Which, for the various reasons I have given, is not true - unless by long term consequences you mean strategic/opeational consequences - but the sort of playstyle I am talking about obviously does not prioritise those sorts of consequences. My example was to contrast playstyles. I even linked to the Edwards essay that I quoted, which makes it clear - if the heading that I quoted didn't make it clear, although I personally think it is pretty unambiguous - that he is contrasting playstyles (or, as he calls them, "player priorities"). He is contrasting how a simulationist and a narrativist playstyle would resolve the "getting there on time" issue. A simulationist would care about distance and time - the ingame causal constraints. A narrativist approach is more likely to focus on the metagame ("here comes the climax!"). Keeping track of time and distance is bound up in those two approaches. The simulationist is likely to keep track of them - in the sort of way that Gygax talks about in his DMG - precisely because the simulationinst wants those considerations to settle the matter. The narativist is likely to track those sorts of things far more loosely - along the lines of the Maelstrom Storytelling quote that I posted upthread - precisely because the narrativist doesn't care about them as much, and is not relying upon them to constrain scene extrapolation/transition. So the comparison in playstyles in fact does not presuppose that the time and distance are known. Part of the comparison is [I]whether or not the players of the game care about knowing them[/I]. I don't really know what your point is. And I'm not changing [I]my [/I] subject. My subject continues to be what I have consistently posted upthread - that the timeline "fix" for the 15 minute day isn't a fix for those who (i) want passive scenarios, and/or (ii) don't want failure to occur offscreen. Or, to put generalise, it is a fix for some playstyles (which are probably also playstyles for which Gygax's timekeeping advice is relevant) but not others. OK. But now who do you think runs games this way? I took it to be obvious that in a "no failure on stage" game, at least one of the following is kept flexible/underdetermined - the time, or the distance. Keeping the time flexibile can be done as [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] suggested above, and as was implicit in my quote above from Paul Czege - namely, leaving the NPCs' plans loose in your mind, to enable them to be retrofitted to the desired framings and conflicts. It can also be done by keeping the narration of the PCs' activities flexible - "You hurry across town, making terrific time" - is that 10 minutes or 15 minutes? We don't need to know, provided that action resolution mechanics aren't involved - this is why spell durations in pre-4e D&D, Rolemaster and other fantasy games aren't so good for this sort of playstyle, because they [I]can[/I] require keeping track of durations down to the last few minutes. Alternatively, you can keep the distance flexible - which was part of the point of the quote from Maelstrom Storytelling above. Of course, if you use simulationist techniques in your game - of tracking time and distance in a way that sets pre-determined limits on who can be where when - then you will [I]have[/I] to determine who gets where in accordane with those limits set by those techniques! My point was that, for those running a game using other techniques, of the sort I've been talking about, "fixes" for the 15 minute day that rely upon the simulationist techniques - like timelines - won't work. Well, I would call it cheating, but I have very strong views about the GM not suspending the action resolution mechanics. But I have to say - if you think that in talking about narrativist rather than simulationist techniques, you think I am talking about measuring all the times and distances precisely and then ignoring them, then I get the impression that you don't really have a great familiarity with how non-simulationinst techniques work. On the other hand, I now have a better idea of why you think my game must be crap - because you're envisaging a game which is just like yours, except from time to time we cheat and rewrite things to get the desired narrative outcome! And yes, that would be a crappy game. The whole point of the "Forge revolution" in mechanics has been to design games which use different techniques for scene framing and action resolution, so that narrativist concerns can trump simulationist ones without having to cheat and rewrite in the way that you seem to be envisaging. To allude back to the Maelstrom Storytelling quote - if, in playing the game, you [I]have[/I] to know how wide the cavern is, or how strong the wind is that the GM is narrating as making the jump a difficult one, or whether it did take 10 or 15 minutes to get across the city, then the sort of techniques I'm describing in this and my earlier posts won't be for you. Which is fine. Like I said at the start, I'm not criticising anyone. I'm talking about what sorts of "fixes" will work for what sorts of playstyles. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Of all the complaints about 3.x systems... do you people actually allow this stuff ?
Top