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
*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="pemerton" data-source="post: 5985788" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>There was a <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/308488-defense-theory-dissociated-mechanics.html" target="_blank">long thread</a> about that article a year or so ago.</p><p></p><p>The principle claim of the article is that metagame mechanics are viable in some games (it mentions Wushu), but not 4e, which is characterised by the author as a series of tactical skirmishes linked by freeform improv.</p><p></p><p>Given that that doesn't describe the actual 4e play of anyone on these boards who seems to be playing and enjoying the system, I think we can infer that Justin Alexander doesn't know much about 4e, nor about what metagame mechanics are viable in a fantasy adventure RPG.</p><p></p><p>Given that, as far as I know, none of those players post on these boards, I'm happy to put this to one side.</p><p></p><p>That is actually not a strong enough constraint to get Emerikol's result.</p><p></p><p>An example that came up on the thread I linked to:</p><p></p><p></p><p>Here we have a player who is thinking and playing his PC true to character on the back of a metagame (ie so-called dissociated) mechanic.</p><p></p><p>Emerikol's requirement is that <em>every specification a player makes of the content of the fiction</em> correspond to a choice his/her PC makes <em>and</em> corresponds to a mechanical resolution performed by that player. Whereas in my example, the player is specifiying some content of the fiction (that his PC's god turned him back) which doesn't correspond to a choice made by the PC (it was the god, not the PC, who turned hm back) nor to a mechanical resolution performed by the player (it was the rules as adjudicated by me, the GM, that determined that the effect came to an end).</p><p></p><p>So Emerikol's requirement is much stricter than actor stance - the player in my example never actually leaves actor stance as a matter of psychology, because the deployment of director stance authority is done from the point of view of the PC (in a sense the player occupies two stances at once, I guess).</p><p></p><p>I don't know what Emerikol thinks is happening when initiative dice are rolled, or choice between standard and move actions made, etc. Given that I assume Emerikol doesn't imagine the fantasy world as a stop motion one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5985788, member: 42582"] There was a [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/308488-defense-theory-dissociated-mechanics.html]long thread[/url] about that article a year or so ago. The principle claim of the article is that metagame mechanics are viable in some games (it mentions Wushu), but not 4e, which is characterised by the author as a series of tactical skirmishes linked by freeform improv. Given that that doesn't describe the actual 4e play of anyone on these boards who seems to be playing and enjoying the system, I think we can infer that Justin Alexander doesn't know much about 4e, nor about what metagame mechanics are viable in a fantasy adventure RPG. Given that, as far as I know, none of those players post on these boards, I'm happy to put this to one side. That is actually not a strong enough constraint to get Emerikol's result. An example that came up on the thread I linked to: Here we have a player who is thinking and playing his PC true to character on the back of a metagame (ie so-called dissociated) mechanic. Emerikol's requirement is that [I]every specification a player makes of the content of the fiction[/I] correspond to a choice his/her PC makes [I]and[/I] corresponds to a mechanical resolution performed by that player. Whereas in my example, the player is specifiying some content of the fiction (that his PC's god turned him back) which doesn't correspond to a choice made by the PC (it was the god, not the PC, who turned hm back) nor to a mechanical resolution performed by the player (it was the rules as adjudicated by me, the GM, that determined that the effect came to an end). So Emerikol's requirement is much stricter than actor stance - the player in my example never actually leaves actor stance as a matter of psychology, because the deployment of director stance authority is done from the point of view of the PC (in a sense the player occupies two stances at once, I guess). I don't know what Emerikol thinks is happening when initiative dice are rolled, or choice between standard and move actions made, etc. Given that I assume Emerikol doesn't imagine the fantasy world as a stop motion one. [/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