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
*TTRPGs General
Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012
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="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 5949675" data-attributes="member: 2067"><p>That's because in 5e, if the promise of modularity is fulfilled, it can't have <strong>a</strong> story. There is no "the" story. There is only YOUR story, the story of you and your fellow players at your table. </p><p></p><p>This is part of what it means to make a game that does not have One True Way To Play It: whatever you choose to do at your table <em>is the entire game</em> as far as you and your group is concerned. But it might not be very similar at all to what someone else does. Given that one of the tabletop RPG's biggest strengths is flexibility, this is a Good Thing.</p><p></p><p>So if you want tactical combat to express something about the game world (a statement which befuddles me with its opacity), it is up to YOU to put that in there. After all, not everyone wants that. </p><p></p><p>You can play the game you want to play. Thee game doesn't assume that they way any particular group wants to play is the way that everyone ought to play. The message of 5e doesn't seem to be "D&D is about fighting monsters!", the message of 5e seems to be "D&D is <em>your story</em>. Tell it how you want to."</p><p></p><p>That does require a bit more assembly, usually, but it results in a much more fulfilling experience, IMXP. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This befuddles me. Most of 4e's story elements are tremendously superfluous to me personally, because they are not well integrated with the mechanics. This is a strength in certain respects: it allows very easily customizability and re-fluffing. But the mechanics don't, IMXP, provide gonzo fantasy storytelling. The mechanics don't integrate "mythic stakes" (whatever that means) at "crucial points of...design" (whatever those are), and the mechanics (targeted as they are at minis combat) present one ideal confrontation for resolving any problem (namely, minis combat, in which you get to use powers, surges, action points, etc.). </p><p></p><p>The 4e chassis provides mostly minis combat. The 4e mechanics for, say, using a blue dragon as an antagonist for an adventure, don't tell me anything about high fantasy storytelling. It tells me how they act in minis combat, but if my primary interest isn't in minis combat, it's all a lot of wasted mechanical onanism. 5e seems to want to recognize this, to say that people have different needs, to acknowledge that minis combat isn't necessarily The Point. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Two points.</p><p></p><p>First, you don't need minis combat to represent that shady noble pulling an ally in front of an arrow. It works just fine abstractly, if you like abstract representation. </p><p></p><p>Second, I don't think any grid combat system bandying about rules for facing is at any risk for over-simplifying things any time soon.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 5949675, member: 2067"] That's because in 5e, if the promise of modularity is fulfilled, it can't have [B]a[/B] story. There is no "the" story. There is only YOUR story, the story of you and your fellow players at your table. This is part of what it means to make a game that does not have One True Way To Play It: whatever you choose to do at your table [I]is the entire game[/I] as far as you and your group is concerned. But it might not be very similar at all to what someone else does. Given that one of the tabletop RPG's biggest strengths is flexibility, this is a Good Thing. So if you want tactical combat to express something about the game world (a statement which befuddles me with its opacity), it is up to YOU to put that in there. After all, not everyone wants that. You can play the game you want to play. Thee game doesn't assume that they way any particular group wants to play is the way that everyone ought to play. The message of 5e doesn't seem to be "D&D is about fighting monsters!", the message of 5e seems to be "D&D is [I]your story[/I]. Tell it how you want to." That does require a bit more assembly, usually, but it results in a much more fulfilling experience, IMXP. This befuddles me. Most of 4e's story elements are tremendously superfluous to me personally, because they are not well integrated with the mechanics. This is a strength in certain respects: it allows very easily customizability and re-fluffing. But the mechanics don't, IMXP, provide gonzo fantasy storytelling. The mechanics don't integrate "mythic stakes" (whatever that means) at "crucial points of...design" (whatever those are), and the mechanics (targeted as they are at minis combat) present one ideal confrontation for resolving any problem (namely, minis combat, in which you get to use powers, surges, action points, etc.). The 4e chassis provides mostly minis combat. The 4e mechanics for, say, using a blue dragon as an antagonist for an adventure, don't tell me anything about high fantasy storytelling. It tells me how they act in minis combat, but if my primary interest isn't in minis combat, it's all a lot of wasted mechanical onanism. 5e seems to want to recognize this, to say that people have different needs, to acknowledge that minis combat isn't necessarily The Point. Two points. First, you don't need minis combat to represent that shady noble pulling an ally in front of an arrow. It works just fine abstractly, if you like abstract representation. Second, I don't think any grid combat system bandying about rules for facing is at any risk for over-simplifying things any time soon. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Rule-of-Three: 06/19/2012
Top