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
The Pride Of Blue Rose
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: 7718978" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I share Aldarc's preferences. I find that if players aren't allowed to play their PCs' knowledge - which, for all the reasons Aldarc gives, is going to require making stuff up at the table - then those PCs seem (in effect) like fish out of water, aliens who are strangers in their own homelands.</p><p></p><p>In my experience, this extends beyond NPCs. In my 4e game, for instance, the player of the invoker/wizard PC makes up stuff about the nature of magic all the time, <em>in the course of playing his PC</em>. If the player couldn't (in character) spout truths about magic, how would he immerse in a character who (the mechanics tell us) is one of the most magically skilled and knowledgeable beings in the multiverse?</p><p></p><p></p><p>I haven't seen anyone questioning your experience. What I read Aldarc as doing is taking issue with some of your description of that experience. That is to say: You may be extreme in your dislike of "fate points" and similar mechanics; you may be extreme in your inability to immerse in games which include such mechanics; but that doesn't mean that you are extreme in your desire for immersion. Immersion is hugely important to me, but for the reasons that Aldarc gives, a game of the sort you prefer would be immersion-breaking for me.</p><p></p><p>One way this plays out, which is quite important to me, is the following: I like to play characters who are devout, and who have faith in the deliverances of providence. Sometimes, those characters fail in their actions. In a Conan-esque game, where it is taken for granted that human existence is subject to the brute and uncaring forces of the cosmos, those failures would be a reason to abandon such naivety. But I prefer a game in which that conclusion - ie the conclusion that belief in providence is naive - is not forced upon my character by the vicissitudes of the dice. One way to do this - to avoid the Conan-esque conclusion - is to leave it open <em>what</em> caused the failure. My devout character can think that successes or failures are themselves the workings of providence. <em>And nothing in the fiction or the mechanics need make that false</em> - provided that the GM is not the sole participant in the game entitled to make it true or false, in the fiction, that providence is or is not at work.</p><p></p><p>A game in which I was obliged to suppose that the random chance of the dice represents nothing more, in the fiction, then the random workings of a cold and uncaring world, would be one in which I could not immerse in a devout character unless I was immersing in that character as a fool. Whereas I prefer my devout characters to be closer to (say) Arthur or Aragorn than Don Quixote.</p><p></p><p></p><p>In D&D there are considerations other than skill bonuses that determine how good someone is at something - eg number of attacks per round; or a feat or class ability (say, the 5e rogue's Cunning Action or Reliable Talent).</p><p></p><p>So it's not as if FATE is doing something weird in allowing multiple factors to determine how good a character is at something.</p><p></p><p>And as far as the description - in D&D, being a <em>Fighter</em> makes me better at fighting (eg multiple attacks, better hp), or being a <em>Thief</em> makes me better at climbing (Second Story Work). Choosing that archetype, rather than some other, makes a difference to the PC's mechanical capabilities ie the definition provides bennies, not vice versa. A FATE character being better at investigating because s/he is <em>The World's Greatest Detective</em> is no different from these D&D examples.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7718978, member: 42582"] I share Aldarc's preferences. I find that if players aren't allowed to play their PCs' knowledge - which, for all the reasons Aldarc gives, is going to require making stuff up at the table - then those PCs seem (in effect) like fish out of water, aliens who are strangers in their own homelands. In my experience, this extends beyond NPCs. In my 4e game, for instance, the player of the invoker/wizard PC makes up stuff about the nature of magic all the time, [I]in the course of playing his PC[/I]. If the player couldn't (in character) spout truths about magic, how would he immerse in a character who (the mechanics tell us) is one of the most magically skilled and knowledgeable beings in the multiverse? I haven't seen anyone questioning your experience. What I read Aldarc as doing is taking issue with some of your description of that experience. That is to say: You may be extreme in your dislike of "fate points" and similar mechanics; you may be extreme in your inability to immerse in games which include such mechanics; but that doesn't mean that you are extreme in your desire for immersion. Immersion is hugely important to me, but for the reasons that Aldarc gives, a game of the sort you prefer would be immersion-breaking for me. One way this plays out, which is quite important to me, is the following: I like to play characters who are devout, and who have faith in the deliverances of providence. Sometimes, those characters fail in their actions. In a Conan-esque game, where it is taken for granted that human existence is subject to the brute and uncaring forces of the cosmos, those failures would be a reason to abandon such naivety. But I prefer a game in which that conclusion - ie the conclusion that belief in providence is naive - is not forced upon my character by the vicissitudes of the dice. One way to do this - to avoid the Conan-esque conclusion - is to leave it open [I]what[/I] caused the failure. My devout character can think that successes or failures are themselves the workings of providence. [I]And nothing in the fiction or the mechanics need make that false[/I] - provided that the GM is not the sole participant in the game entitled to make it true or false, in the fiction, that providence is or is not at work. A game in which I was obliged to suppose that the random chance of the dice represents nothing more, in the fiction, then the random workings of a cold and uncaring world, would be one in which I could not immerse in a devout character unless I was immersing in that character as a fool. Whereas I prefer my devout characters to be closer to (say) Arthur or Aragorn than Don Quixote. In D&D there are considerations other than skill bonuses that determine how good someone is at something - eg number of attacks per round; or a feat or class ability (say, the 5e rogue's Cunning Action or Reliable Talent). So it's not as if FATE is doing something weird in allowing multiple factors to determine how good a character is at something. And as far as the description - in D&D, being a [I]Fighter[/I] makes me better at fighting (eg multiple attacks, better hp), or being a [I]Thief[/I] makes me better at climbing (Second Story Work). Choosing that archetype, rather than some other, makes a difference to the PC's mechanical capabilities ie the definition provides bennies, not vice versa. A FATE character being better at investigating because s/he is [I]The World's Greatest Detective[/I] is no different from these D&D examples. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
The Pride Of Blue Rose
Top