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
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
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="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5980604" data-attributes="member: 54877"><p>Certainly. However, it is quite natural in a game geared towards process-simulation--which in the early and mid parts of the hobby, most games are--to adapt a defact set of stakes and intents based on those rules, without even considering the concept of stakes and intents. That's what I was talking about. </p><p> </p><p>A character checks for traps and picks a lock on a chest in a deep, dark dungeon. After the first nasty poison needle surprise (and probably replacement of the thief with a new character), the second time this comes up, the stakes and intent are so clear as to not need explicit discussion. Where process-simulation really falls down as a universal method is at the point where the action becomes complicated enough that the stakes and intent lose this clarity.</p><p> </p><p>If you look at the history of process-simulation games, the indepth discussion and problem spots are often dealing with this very problem. IMHO, I think GURPS does as fine a job of dealing with this, while staying on its process-simulation roots, as any game, ever. But GURPS has its kludges and quirks, and most of them are prompted by pushing process-simulation to the maximum. It's "Default Skill Rule" is one example, that doesnt hold up under deep scrutiny, but does patch a rather vivid hole with a nice illusion. OTOH, GURPS does cover so much so well, that if you like what it is trying to do, you can avoid the problem areas with ... social contract. In fact, this is probably the fundamental difference between GURPS and Hero. Hero is almost pure result-simulation mindset married to process-simulation pretensions and illusions. It's why the most critical component of a Hero group is everyone agreeing not to look behind the rather obvious curtain. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p> </p><p>I'm hitting the same stuff that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is covering more completely in his posts about the nature of what we are doing, only coming at this particularly point from a different angle that I thought was being left out in the shuffle: You always have stakes and intent whether you know it or not, or whether you even consider the concept or that it has a name. Heck, half the idea behind "social contract" is that when you push button X, you reliably get a result A (or some close variant of it, people being people). <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5980604, member: 54877"] Certainly. However, it is quite natural in a game geared towards process-simulation--which in the early and mid parts of the hobby, most games are--to adapt a defact set of stakes and intents based on those rules, without even considering the concept of stakes and intents. That's what I was talking about. A character checks for traps and picks a lock on a chest in a deep, dark dungeon. After the first nasty poison needle surprise (and probably replacement of the thief with a new character), the second time this comes up, the stakes and intent are so clear as to not need explicit discussion. Where process-simulation really falls down as a universal method is at the point where the action becomes complicated enough that the stakes and intent lose this clarity. If you look at the history of process-simulation games, the indepth discussion and problem spots are often dealing with this very problem. IMHO, I think GURPS does as fine a job of dealing with this, while staying on its process-simulation roots, as any game, ever. But GURPS has its kludges and quirks, and most of them are prompted by pushing process-simulation to the maximum. It's "Default Skill Rule" is one example, that doesnt hold up under deep scrutiny, but does patch a rather vivid hole with a nice illusion. OTOH, GURPS does cover so much so well, that if you like what it is trying to do, you can avoid the problem areas with ... social contract. In fact, this is probably the fundamental difference between GURPS and Hero. Hero is almost pure result-simulation mindset married to process-simulation pretensions and illusions. It's why the most critical component of a Hero group is everyone agreeing not to look behind the rather obvious curtain. :D I'm hitting the same stuff that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] is covering more completely in his posts about the nature of what we are doing, only coming at this particularly point from a different angle that I thought was being left out in the shuffle: You always have stakes and intent whether you know it or not, or whether you even consider the concept or that it has a name. Heck, half the idea behind "social contract" is that when you push button X, you reliably get a result A (or some close variant of it, people being people). :D [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top