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="Balesir" data-source="post: 6002692" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>I actually disagree, even though I think I know what you're driving at. The problem is that a real armed combat (be it samurai duellists or western swordmasters) between two combatants is typically over in 5-10 seconds unless the opponents are astoundingly well matched and very skilled indeed. I think HârnMaster (for all its faults) does OK with a 10 second round, but only because of the "tactical advantage" system that means a character might be taking several actions in one round, depending on how the tempo of the fight works out.</p><p></p><p>In other words, so much happens in 6 seconds that I think the level of abstraction is fine, there. The problem is not the level of abstraction or the time tick - it's the recognition that the characters are using skills that the player, not being in the exact situation or having the same training as the character, cannot hope to match or even emulate.</p><p></p><p>Hmm. I picture scenes in my head all the time while I roleplay; if I do it from the character's PoV I think that <em>can be</em> immersion - a sort of trance where I react to what the picture in my head shows me, not (directly) to the system or the other players (including the GM).</p><p></p><p>Something I have started doing, though, is neither expecting nor trying to enforce other players to see the exact same details I do in the fiction. I am doing this because I have found that it leads to issues - particularly with respect to this "poor play"/"good play" rewards thing.</p><p></p><p>The root of the problem, it seems to me, is that what I see in my head <em>I</em> find believable, but others with different "world models" seeing the exact same detail might find it entirely <strong><em>un</em></strong>believable. The same effect means that if I, as GM, start rewarding players for doing something "believably smart", all I am really doing is rewarding them for having the same world-physics model as me. I don't (any longer) find this satisfying.</p><p></p><p>Which is fine as long as all the players see the detailed fictional positioning having an effect on resolution that they see as being "believable". You form a group all self-congratulating each other for having the same world-model, much like parts of this thread (credit to JC for pointing that out!)</p><p></p><p>I, too, love that the players get to create links, at runtime, between the actions and the fiction in 4e. I'm still leery of sharing too much what these links are or how they affect resolution, because I think to do so endangers some players' visions of the fiction as a whole - including mine.</p><p></p><p>Funnily enough, outside of combat I see plenty of scope in just about all rulesets to play this way.</p><p></p><p>Hmm, interesting. I generally look for the "world" to be revealed to me in the outcomes generated by the systems, but what you're suggesting here is - if it works out OK - the gentle reinforcement and acceptance by the game group of each others' world models through descriptions in play being accepted by the rest of the group, with occasional veto by the GM. I think I would see that as incredibly fragile and much prefer simple discussion and agreement, personally, but I can see it as a preference for some. It would probably be best done without a system - just a world background description would help, perhaps.</p><p></p><p>This whole post makes no sense to me at all. If hit points and experience points are such a negative element in D&D for those who want whatever it is that you are advocating, why on earth haven't all or most of those players switched to a system that actually removes those elements?? I mean, in the earliest days, sure, I can understand it - there were no alternatives that didn't use hit points and some semblance of an "experience system"; but by 1983 they were appearing and in 2012 there are plenty of them!</p><p></p><p>Surely, D&D without hit points and experience points to go up level would be right there in the bullseye for a "not D&D" claim? Why the apparent need to drag D&D toward being more like a DragonQuest/RuneQuest/HârnMaster/Riddle of Steel clone than like the original D&D?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6002692, member: 27160"] I actually disagree, even though I think I know what you're driving at. The problem is that a real armed combat (be it samurai duellists or western swordmasters) between two combatants is typically over in 5-10 seconds unless the opponents are astoundingly well matched and very skilled indeed. I think HârnMaster (for all its faults) does OK with a 10 second round, but only because of the "tactical advantage" system that means a character might be taking several actions in one round, depending on how the tempo of the fight works out. In other words, so much happens in 6 seconds that I think the level of abstraction is fine, there. The problem is not the level of abstraction or the time tick - it's the recognition that the characters are using skills that the player, not being in the exact situation or having the same training as the character, cannot hope to match or even emulate. Hmm. I picture scenes in my head all the time while I roleplay; if I do it from the character's PoV I think that [I]can be[/I] immersion - a sort of trance where I react to what the picture in my head shows me, not (directly) to the system or the other players (including the GM). Something I have started doing, though, is neither expecting nor trying to enforce other players to see the exact same details I do in the fiction. I am doing this because I have found that it leads to issues - particularly with respect to this "poor play"/"good play" rewards thing. The root of the problem, it seems to me, is that what I see in my head [I]I[/I] find believable, but others with different "world models" seeing the exact same detail might find it entirely [B][I]un[/I][/B]believable. The same effect means that if I, as GM, start rewarding players for doing something "believably smart", all I am really doing is rewarding them for having the same world-physics model as me. I don't (any longer) find this satisfying. Which is fine as long as all the players see the detailed fictional positioning having an effect on resolution that they see as being "believable". You form a group all self-congratulating each other for having the same world-model, much like parts of this thread (credit to JC for pointing that out!) I, too, love that the players get to create links, at runtime, between the actions and the fiction in 4e. I'm still leery of sharing too much what these links are or how they affect resolution, because I think to do so endangers some players' visions of the fiction as a whole - including mine. Funnily enough, outside of combat I see plenty of scope in just about all rulesets to play this way. Hmm, interesting. I generally look for the "world" to be revealed to me in the outcomes generated by the systems, but what you're suggesting here is - if it works out OK - the gentle reinforcement and acceptance by the game group of each others' world models through descriptions in play being accepted by the rest of the group, with occasional veto by the GM. I think I would see that as incredibly fragile and much prefer simple discussion and agreement, personally, but I can see it as a preference for some. It would probably be best done without a system - just a world background description would help, perhaps. This whole post makes no sense to me at all. If hit points and experience points are such a negative element in D&D for those who want whatever it is that you are advocating, why on earth haven't all or most of those players switched to a system that actually removes those elements?? I mean, in the earliest days, sure, I can understand it - there were no alternatives that didn't use hit points and some semblance of an "experience system"; but by 1983 they were appearing and in 2012 there are plenty of them! Surely, D&D without hit points and experience points to go up level would be right there in the bullseye for a "not D&D" claim? Why the apparent need to drag D&D toward being more like a DragonQuest/RuneQuest/HârnMaster/Riddle of Steel clone than like the original D&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