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="pemerton" data-source="post: 5988831" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Using the terminology that I posted <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5988191-post467.html" target="_blank">here</a>, doing Y without having any X in mind is <strong>pawn</strong> stance. Arguably, that is when RPG play has started dropping away and board game play has commenced, though it will depend a bit on the details. Deciding to join the party, in D&D, is perhaps best seen as part of the set-up rather than play itself. And in many games that involve strong GM force, taking the GMs adventure hook (which often involves pawn stance, or the thinnest veneer of PC-motivation-rationalisation) is also best seen as part of the set-up.</p><p></p><p>But constant pawn stance once the scenario is in motion can definitely be an issue.</p><p></p><p>But what Justin Alexander is complaining about is, as far as I can tell, not pawn stance. On the player side, he seems to be complaining about director stance, or about mechanics that don't involve stance at all (eg because they're pure metagame and don't have any direct bearing on the content of the fiction - rolling for initiative would be an example). On the GM side, he seems to be complaining about mechanics like the War Devil's Besieged Foe:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Minor action, at-will, a target within line of sight is marked by the war devil, and allies of the war devil gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls made against the target until the encounter ends or the war devil marks a new target.</p><p></p><p>I've never played M&M, but I understand it has a mechanic whereby the GM can introduce a complication that adversely affects a PC, but to do so must give the PC a fate token. (Other games have similar mechancis). Besieged Foe is capable of being interpreted in a similar way, as a pure metagame mechanic: when the GM has a War Devil on the table, s/he can complicate things for the PC - the PC becomes "besieged" because the allies of the War Devil get a bonus to hit him/her, while s/he (due to being marked) has a penalty to hit anyone but the War Devil - but the trade off is that, to do this, the GM has to expend a resource, namely, a minor action from the War Devil's action economy.</p><p></p><p>Alternatively, Besieged Foe can be played as a "fortune-in-the-middle" effect - when the War Devil uses the power something happens in the fiction (a curse, a command to allies, etc) but what exactly that is has to be narrated on a potentially different basis each time the power is used. Played this way, the power would be similar to the Baleful Polymorph I described upthread, where my player narrated its duration as reflcting his god's freeing him from the effect.</p><p></p><p>However Besieged Foe is played, it is not an issue of stance. Nor of "Xs without Ys". Justin Alexander's concern seems to be that there is no provision for fictional positioning - but if the power is played as fortune-in-the-middle that's not true (some fiction will be narrated), while if it is played as pure metagame than that's not a problem. In M&M the player can't leverage fictional positioning to stop the GM to introduce a complication either, because the event is not one in the fiction - it happens entirely at the metagame level.</p><p></p><p>Agreed. But I think Hussar is correct that it often is - that players of fantasy RPGs often have their PCs do things because they're cool, rather than because they're "in character".</p><p></p><p>Your experience may differ, of course - all any of us can do here is try to generalise fairly from the experiences we've had.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5988831, member: 42582"] Using the terminology that I posted [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/5988191-post467.html]here[/url], doing Y without having any X in mind is [B]pawn[/B] stance. Arguably, that is when RPG play has started dropping away and board game play has commenced, though it will depend a bit on the details. Deciding to join the party, in D&D, is perhaps best seen as part of the set-up rather than play itself. And in many games that involve strong GM force, taking the GMs adventure hook (which often involves pawn stance, or the thinnest veneer of PC-motivation-rationalisation) is also best seen as part of the set-up. But constant pawn stance once the scenario is in motion can definitely be an issue. But what Justin Alexander is complaining about is, as far as I can tell, not pawn stance. On the player side, he seems to be complaining about director stance, or about mechanics that don't involve stance at all (eg because they're pure metagame and don't have any direct bearing on the content of the fiction - rolling for initiative would be an example). On the GM side, he seems to be complaining about mechanics like the War Devil's Besieged Foe: [indent]Minor action, at-will, a target within line of sight is marked by the war devil, and allies of the war devil gain a +2 bonus to attack rolls made against the target until the encounter ends or the war devil marks a new target.[/indent] I've never played M&M, but I understand it has a mechanic whereby the GM can introduce a complication that adversely affects a PC, but to do so must give the PC a fate token. (Other games have similar mechancis). Besieged Foe is capable of being interpreted in a similar way, as a pure metagame mechanic: when the GM has a War Devil on the table, s/he can complicate things for the PC - the PC becomes "besieged" because the allies of the War Devil get a bonus to hit him/her, while s/he (due to being marked) has a penalty to hit anyone but the War Devil - but the trade off is that, to do this, the GM has to expend a resource, namely, a minor action from the War Devil's action economy. Alternatively, Besieged Foe can be played as a "fortune-in-the-middle" effect - when the War Devil uses the power something happens in the fiction (a curse, a command to allies, etc) but what exactly that is has to be narrated on a potentially different basis each time the power is used. Played this way, the power would be similar to the Baleful Polymorph I described upthread, where my player narrated its duration as reflcting his god's freeing him from the effect. However Besieged Foe is played, it is not an issue of stance. Nor of "Xs without Ys". Justin Alexander's concern seems to be that there is no provision for fictional positioning - but if the power is played as fortune-in-the-middle that's not true (some fiction will be narrated), while if it is played as pure metagame than that's not a problem. In M&M the player can't leverage fictional positioning to stop the GM to introduce a complication either, because the event is not one in the fiction - it happens entirely at the metagame level. Agreed. But I think Hussar is correct that it often is - that players of fantasy RPGs often have their PCs do things because they're cool, rather than because they're "in character". Your experience may differ, of course - all any of us can do here is try to generalise fairly from the experiences we've had. [/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