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
Pros and Cons of Epic Level Play?
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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6284854" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>Pemerton. I bow to you. I had thought myself the wordiest writer on EnWorld, but you have just took the crown from me. That post is so long, I got lost in it. It may take me several days to read it, if I ever manage to.</p><p></p><p>I can only respond to some of the highlights. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed. You have differentiated them mechanically. But it would be possible to make the difference mere color. If you used the same process simulation to resolve both hazards, for example rolling a series of Survival and Perception skill checks to get X successes before Y failures, then the difference between the two is mere color. For that matter, the difference between crossing the gorge and winning a seige of a castle might also be reduced to mere color.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Think about that for a bit.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, I don't really see how you are describing anything here other than bad GMing. You know enough Nar techniques to know how to make this opaque to the players. Don't set up a bad example of handling the situation as a straw man and then think that suffices to dismiss it. Besides which, this is tangent you've picked up on from something that was meant to be a simple analogy. You're well off the point of the analogy now.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Pem, I'm not sure you'd even realize when you were doing something I'd consider a railroad. At least I know that there are railroading techniques involved in treating a forest like a dungeon, and would be conscious of the technique I was using. I wrote the definite guide on how to railroad and why.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Speaking of how you can level up and it means no change in your relationship to the world...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Quite a lot of CoC play is dungeon crawling, I agree. By "dungeon crawling" I mean the play of process simulation with little or no hard scene framing on a map where the players engage in exploration and tactical combat, usually to retrieve treasure, clues, perform quest actions, or in some cases simply for the sake of that as a game itself. And yes, I associate that with "heroic tier" but not either exclusively with heroic tier nor as a definative attribute of it. And yes, I know you dont' do "dungeon crawling", you run a classic "open world" style game that is comparitively high on scene framing and abstraction. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I've had both in the same campaign. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>*shakes head* LOL Seriously, Pem, I don't think we are ever going to understand each other.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm fairly sure it is. And I'm fairly sure that, some of your humor aside, you could run a seriously interesting game set at that power level. Now, a DM could also squash it, by having an invasion of something well above the power level of the setting show up and reduce the quarrels to a petty state - even banded together the merchant houses can't resist the invasion of dragons or armies of the Empire and the paragons are reduced to mere heroes fighting to survive. But you could also elevate it, can the merchant houses survive the zombie apocalypse after the apparant destruction of the rest of civilization?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>To me it shows the opposite. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, it's about time you realized that. For me, as a player, what matters is the imagined experience of my PC. It's to create the imagined experience of my PC that I'm playing, and the experience of the PC being my own experience as a player is the sensation or effect I'm going for. It's that sensation of remembering play through the eyes of the PC rather than remembering play as something that happened at a table and involved dice that lies at the heart of well played RPGs IMO. Of course I'm framing it from an ingame perspective, because that is the perspective that is dominate in my game. In fact, I'd go so far to say that within RPGs as I play them, if you as a player are not engaging them from an in game perspective you are doing it wrong. As a storyteller, a player that consistantly refused to engage entirely or nearly entirely from an ingame perspective would eventually be booted from my table as a pernicious trouble maker who was ruining the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The NPC doesn't percieve it as questing to change the rules of the game. He percieves it as questing to change to the physics of the world he lives in. Since those physics are defined by game rules, the practical effect on the game of the NPCs quest would be changes in the rules of the game. You rightly discern that I'm broadly speaking in this case of things like new feats, new spells, etc. - things added to the setting or removed from the setting - that correspond to changes in the fictional positioning of the entire setting. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The players PC's also have their own goals. One PC is Champion of Aravar. He has goals like: serve Aravar and bring honor to his name, discover his own hidden identity (player deliberately left mysteries in his backstory), and related to that find his missing father and reconnect to his heritage. One PC is a Cleric of Showna. She has goals like: connect with the orthodox chuch of Showna and learn its mysteries, learn the secrets of her heritage (again deliberate mysteries in her backstory, really common player theme there), and respread the worship of Showna to the sword coast region so that it may regain prominence. And so forth. Some players main agendas are simplier - acquire personal power or wealth. Some players literally only had a character concept and asked for an agenda that I thought would be suitable to the concept - and were given relationships to NPCs that I knew would be interesting later on. But all of that is occuring within a living world filled with many NPC factions with their own agendas. Some of those NPC factions were added to the game or elaborated on specifically to fulfill or enable player agendas. Some are there specifically to fulfill DM agenda and ensure that the sandbox always has toys to play with. After all, many of my players have never played an RPG before. If there is a lapse in proactivity, I don't want play to grind to a halt.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You wouldn't. I'm not surprised that you don't in both cases.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, I agree that fictional positioning matters a lot. I think you can see how from what I described as the goal of play, fictional positioning is critical to creating the game. Indeed, one could say that fictional positioning is at some level all the game. But, when fictional positioning has no impact on the process of play, it can undermine emersion within the fiction. An example of this would be a game like Mass Effect. The first time you play Mass Effect you are quite careful in making dialogue choices because it seems from the fictional positioning that your choices are going to have a big impact on the story. It leads to a satisfying experience of play. But if you then go back and replay the game and make different choices, you quickly realize that it was all illusionism. Your actual ability to make meaningful choices was pretty much non-existent. In many cases, it won't even change the dialogue you experience in any significant way and at most all you can do is shut yourself out of further dialogue. There is basically almost never two different stories. You either get the same story or you don't get a story. None of the changes in fictional positioning nor any of the processes used to change the fictional positioning have much meaning. This is fine so long as you don't penetrate the veil of the illusion, but once you do it undermines the experience.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>^^^ *points up* No serious, look up. Read that again.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And yet, it moves.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 6284854, member: 4937"] Pemerton. I bow to you. I had thought myself the wordiest writer on EnWorld, but you have just took the crown from me. That post is so long, I got lost in it. It may take me several days to read it, if I ever manage to. I can only respond to some of the highlights. Agreed. You have differentiated them mechanically. But it would be possible to make the difference mere color. If you used the same process simulation to resolve both hazards, for example rolling a series of Survival and Perception skill checks to get X successes before Y failures, then the difference between the two is mere color. For that matter, the difference between crossing the gorge and winning a seige of a castle might also be reduced to mere color. Think about that for a bit. No, I don't really see how you are describing anything here other than bad GMing. You know enough Nar techniques to know how to make this opaque to the players. Don't set up a bad example of handling the situation as a straw man and then think that suffices to dismiss it. Besides which, this is tangent you've picked up on from something that was meant to be a simple analogy. You're well off the point of the analogy now. Pem, I'm not sure you'd even realize when you were doing something I'd consider a railroad. At least I know that there are railroading techniques involved in treating a forest like a dungeon, and would be conscious of the technique I was using. I wrote the definite guide on how to railroad and why. Speaking of how you can level up and it means no change in your relationship to the world... Quite a lot of CoC play is dungeon crawling, I agree. By "dungeon crawling" I mean the play of process simulation with little or no hard scene framing on a map where the players engage in exploration and tactical combat, usually to retrieve treasure, clues, perform quest actions, or in some cases simply for the sake of that as a game itself. And yes, I associate that with "heroic tier" but not either exclusively with heroic tier nor as a definative attribute of it. And yes, I know you dont' do "dungeon crawling", you run a classic "open world" style game that is comparitively high on scene framing and abstraction. I've had both in the same campaign. *shakes head* LOL Seriously, Pem, I don't think we are ever going to understand each other. I'm fairly sure it is. And I'm fairly sure that, some of your humor aside, you could run a seriously interesting game set at that power level. Now, a DM could also squash it, by having an invasion of something well above the power level of the setting show up and reduce the quarrels to a petty state - even banded together the merchant houses can't resist the invasion of dragons or armies of the Empire and the paragons are reduced to mere heroes fighting to survive. But you could also elevate it, can the merchant houses survive the zombie apocalypse after the apparant destruction of the rest of civilization? To me it shows the opposite. Well, it's about time you realized that. For me, as a player, what matters is the imagined experience of my PC. It's to create the imagined experience of my PC that I'm playing, and the experience of the PC being my own experience as a player is the sensation or effect I'm going for. It's that sensation of remembering play through the eyes of the PC rather than remembering play as something that happened at a table and involved dice that lies at the heart of well played RPGs IMO. Of course I'm framing it from an ingame perspective, because that is the perspective that is dominate in my game. In fact, I'd go so far to say that within RPGs as I play them, if you as a player are not engaging them from an in game perspective you are doing it wrong. As a storyteller, a player that consistantly refused to engage entirely or nearly entirely from an ingame perspective would eventually be booted from my table as a pernicious trouble maker who was ruining the game. The NPC doesn't percieve it as questing to change the rules of the game. He percieves it as questing to change to the physics of the world he lives in. Since those physics are defined by game rules, the practical effect on the game of the NPCs quest would be changes in the rules of the game. You rightly discern that I'm broadly speaking in this case of things like new feats, new spells, etc. - things added to the setting or removed from the setting - that correspond to changes in the fictional positioning of the entire setting. The players PC's also have their own goals. One PC is Champion of Aravar. He has goals like: serve Aravar and bring honor to his name, discover his own hidden identity (player deliberately left mysteries in his backstory), and related to that find his missing father and reconnect to his heritage. One PC is a Cleric of Showna. She has goals like: connect with the orthodox chuch of Showna and learn its mysteries, learn the secrets of her heritage (again deliberate mysteries in her backstory, really common player theme there), and respread the worship of Showna to the sword coast region so that it may regain prominence. And so forth. Some players main agendas are simplier - acquire personal power or wealth. Some players literally only had a character concept and asked for an agenda that I thought would be suitable to the concept - and were given relationships to NPCs that I knew would be interesting later on. But all of that is occuring within a living world filled with many NPC factions with their own agendas. Some of those NPC factions were added to the game or elaborated on specifically to fulfill or enable player agendas. Some are there specifically to fulfill DM agenda and ensure that the sandbox always has toys to play with. After all, many of my players have never played an RPG before. If there is a lapse in proactivity, I don't want play to grind to a halt. You wouldn't. I'm not surprised that you don't in both cases. Yes, I agree that fictional positioning matters a lot. I think you can see how from what I described as the goal of play, fictional positioning is critical to creating the game. Indeed, one could say that fictional positioning is at some level all the game. But, when fictional positioning has no impact on the process of play, it can undermine emersion within the fiction. An example of this would be a game like Mass Effect. The first time you play Mass Effect you are quite careful in making dialogue choices because it seems from the fictional positioning that your choices are going to have a big impact on the story. It leads to a satisfying experience of play. But if you then go back and replay the game and make different choices, you quickly realize that it was all illusionism. Your actual ability to make meaningful choices was pretty much non-existent. In many cases, it won't even change the dialogue you experience in any significant way and at most all you can do is shut yourself out of further dialogue. There is basically almost never two different stories. You either get the same story or you don't get a story. None of the changes in fictional positioning nor any of the processes used to change the fictional positioning have much meaning. This is fine so long as you don't penetrate the veil of the illusion, but once you do it undermines the experience. ^^^ *points up* No serious, look up. Read that again. And yet, it moves. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Pros and Cons of Epic Level Play?
Top