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
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
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: 5829775" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>My typical approach is, I think, somewhere between the two approaches you describe. I don't wait for my players to initiate the action - I will frame a situation which requires the PCs to act in some fashion, and so requires the players to choose. And I will try to make sure that, within that situation, is something that speaks to the story elements the players have incorporated into or developed via their PCs.</p><p></p><p>But how things unfold from situation to situation is in the hands of my players. Which doesn't mean I don't prepare anything - often some courses of action (eg that the PCs will eventually go to the ruined temple to try and recover the lost relic) are fairly predictable. But sometimes things move in unexpected directions. For example, in my previous campaign, before the PCs went to the ruined temple, they got in a fight with a rival clan, and three of them ended up unconscious and shut inside barrels in a storage room in the rival clan's compound. When the other two PCs staged a rescue, the location and opposition had to be worked out by me on the spot.</p><p></p><p>For this sort of improvisational/just-in-time GMing, I rely on (i) a good general sense of the setting and the genre expectations at the table, and (ii) the game's mechanics working so as to make a situation interesting in play even if it's fairly simple in conception.</p><p></p><p>To elaborate on (ii), in relation to breaking into the compound to rescue the other PCs. In Basic D&D, if the NPC guards were 5 1st level fighters and the two rescuers were 3rd level, this would probably not be all that interesting to resolve. To make it interesting I think you'd have to pile on more opposition, a more complex floor plan, etc - all stuff that can be tricky to do on the fly.</p><p></p><p>But in games with more elaborate action resolution mechanics, like Rolemaster or 4e, even a fight with a handful of weak-ish enemies, or the climbing of a wall and sneaking across a courtyard, can become a bit more dramatic in the actual resolution - which shifts the burden away from having to come up with lots of clever stuff on the fly (tricky) and onto making sure the situation unflods (via the mechanics) in an interesting and engaging way (which is the bread-and-butter of GMing, in my view).</p><p></p><p>To bring this back (at least somewhat) to the topic: my approach to GMing has two main components - (i) setting up the situations, and (ii) adjudicating the resolution of them in a way that maximises interest, engagement, dynamics, driving things forward to interesting new situations, etc. World building I see as secondary - it provides backstory for primary job (i). And settling the rules I see as secondary - it is a subordinate component of primary job (ii).</p><p></p><p>This is an approach which, in terms of the OP's classificatory scheme, is probably CaS rather than CaW, but I don't think the way the OP describes CaS quite captures the salient features of my approach. It's not primarily about balanced encounters. It's about engaging situations that leverage the action resolution mechanics rather than bypass them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5829775, member: 42582"] My typical approach is, I think, somewhere between the two approaches you describe. I don't wait for my players to initiate the action - I will frame a situation which requires the PCs to act in some fashion, and so requires the players to choose. And I will try to make sure that, within that situation, is something that speaks to the story elements the players have incorporated into or developed via their PCs. But how things unfold from situation to situation is in the hands of my players. Which doesn't mean I don't prepare anything - often some courses of action (eg that the PCs will eventually go to the ruined temple to try and recover the lost relic) are fairly predictable. But sometimes things move in unexpected directions. For example, in my previous campaign, before the PCs went to the ruined temple, they got in a fight with a rival clan, and three of them ended up unconscious and shut inside barrels in a storage room in the rival clan's compound. When the other two PCs staged a rescue, the location and opposition had to be worked out by me on the spot. For this sort of improvisational/just-in-time GMing, I rely on (i) a good general sense of the setting and the genre expectations at the table, and (ii) the game's mechanics working so as to make a situation interesting in play even if it's fairly simple in conception. To elaborate on (ii), in relation to breaking into the compound to rescue the other PCs. In Basic D&D, if the NPC guards were 5 1st level fighters and the two rescuers were 3rd level, this would probably not be all that interesting to resolve. To make it interesting I think you'd have to pile on more opposition, a more complex floor plan, etc - all stuff that can be tricky to do on the fly. But in games with more elaborate action resolution mechanics, like Rolemaster or 4e, even a fight with a handful of weak-ish enemies, or the climbing of a wall and sneaking across a courtyard, can become a bit more dramatic in the actual resolution - which shifts the burden away from having to come up with lots of clever stuff on the fly (tricky) and onto making sure the situation unflods (via the mechanics) in an interesting and engaging way (which is the bread-and-butter of GMing, in my view). To bring this back (at least somewhat) to the topic: my approach to GMing has two main components - (i) setting up the situations, and (ii) adjudicating the resolution of them in a way that maximises interest, engagement, dynamics, driving things forward to interesting new situations, etc. World building I see as secondary - it provides backstory for primary job (i). And settling the rules I see as secondary - it is a subordinate component of primary job (ii). This is an approach which, in terms of the OP's classificatory scheme, is probably CaS rather than CaW, but I don't think the way the OP describes CaS quite captures the salient features of my approach. It's not primarily about balanced encounters. It's about engaging situations that leverage the action resolution mechanics rather than bypass them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
[Very Long] Combat as Sport vs. Combat as War: a Key Difference in D&D Play Styles...
Top