Why do RPGs have rules?

[Micah Sweet]

It's not. But if both are equally (un)realistic, why not frame the situation that speaks to the PC's dramatic need?

Conversely, if there's no plan to do that, then why bother having players establish such things for their PCs?

Because its all set up ahead of time. I don't decide in the moment that the orcs are in whatever direction tbe PC decides to go. I decide where the orcs are, provide access to information that can lead the PC to the orcs, but run based on whatever is in the direction the PC actually decides to go. If that's to the orcs, great! If that's to the goblins, great! It's up to them where they go, but its up to me before they make that decision what is in that direction.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I look at the game/campaign as being bigger than any one PC's story, in part because I don't want the campaign to end if-when that PC's story ends. And so, there's always going to be lots more out there at any given time than just what matters to the PC you happen to be playing at the moment.

Right, so, to me that is the essence of where we all differ in preference. Either as GM or as a player I am all about the characters. The wider world may be interesting in that it forms their perspective on things, but "after your adventuring career" (or even the supposition that 'adventuring' is a discrete thing ala D&D) doesn't really scan for me.

Now, there's clearly other players, so its not a question of a demand to focus only on my stuff, but I can handle working out where we all fit together, or where we all conflict, etc. depending on the game and whatnot. Certainly I expect the GM to have everyone in mind. So if my character's goal is to become lord of his own domain, then clearly that will not be the ONLY thing going on.

Anyway, that may not be WHY we have different tastes, that I cannot really explain, but other stuff stems from that, I think.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Seldom was an issue under AD&D 1e/2e and BX/BECMI/Cyclo+Wrath.
I've used TOTM in 5E, it wasn't that big an issue.

It's far easier, however, to go from minis based rules to TOTM play than to use TOTM-focused rules on a map...

Ehhhhhh, dunno about that... So, yes, for the very loose and arguably minis-based AD&D system its easy to go to ToTM, but its also arguable that its the other way around! I mean the system is notoriously vague as to what exactly the rules are related to 'where you are on the battlefield'. I think B/X and its Basic siblings probably mostly fall into the same bag as AD&D, though they may be more clear as to exactly what is going on (Holmes is the only one I'm familiar with to any great degree, and its pretty vague).

4e is grid based, and any attempt to subvert that is mostly doomed to failure, or at the very least requires some severe compromises in game play. So I'd say its a counter-argument.

5e I think is pretty much designed to default to ToTM with the proviso that you'll have to 'wing it' on AoEs. It certainly can be put on a grid without too much problem and was clearly written with that in mind.

I would agree with the proposition that a grid really won't help much with Dungeon World, and might be actively disadvantageous in terms of how the experience plays. However, that may depend on the participants, some people might like a battlemap and here I think there's unlikely to be actual rules impact from adding it, though it may tend to lead to more conservative notions of what kinds of fictional actions are possible, or what their hazards are. Some people may WANT that.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I've actually found that playing theater of the mind with 5e can help create far more compelling decisions in combat. When everything is on a grid and we're obeying the absurdly specific areas of effects of spells and mostly static physical positioning of all combatants, things are more rigid.

When you're using theater of the mind instead, then the GM is free to craft things a bit. "Sure, you can hit all four gnolls with the fireball, but you'll hit your fighter as well" rather than "If I center my fireball on this square, I can get all the bad guys and miss all my allies".

 

[Lanefan]

Seldom was an issue under AD&D 1e/2e and BX/BECMI/Cyclo+Wrath.
I've used TOTM in 5E, it wasn't that big an issue.

Even in 1e, having tried TotM once or twice and had it massively fail mostly due to arguments over character and opponent positioning relative to each other and to terrain/setting features, never again. Map and minis all the way, thanks.

That said, the grid is just there as a scale reference. If-when relevant, distances are measured in straight-line feet in whatever direction is required, rather than strictly aligned with the squares or diagonals.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've actually found that playing theater of the mind with 5e can help create far more compelling decisions in combat. When everything is on a grid and we're obeying the absurdly specific areas of effects of spells and mostly static physical positioning of all combatants, things are more rigid.

When you're using theater of the mind instead, then the GM is free to craft things a bit. "Sure, you can hit all four gnolls with the fireball, but you'll hit your fighter as well" rather than "If I center my fireball on this square, I can get all the bad guys and miss all my allies".

It can also cause arguments, in exactly the situation you describe.

 

[Lanefan]

Right, so, to me that is the essence of where we all differ in preference. Either as GM or as a player I am all about the characters. The wider world may be interesting in that it forms their perspective on things, but "after your adventuring career" (or even the supposition that 'adventuring' is a discrete thing ala D&D) doesn't really scan for me.

Now, there's clearly other players, so its not a question of a demand to focus only on my stuff, but I can handle working out where we all fit together, or where we all conflict, etc. depending on the game and whatnot. Certainly I expect the GM to have everyone in mind. So if my character's goal is to become lord of his own domain, then clearly that will not be the ONLY thing going on.

Sure. My point is, however, that once that character does become lord of his own domain, what happens next? Where does or can the greater campaign go from there, and how? How can both the players and GM make further use of the background lore and stories that have built up over the course of play so far?

Completely ending the campaign and starting something new is to me the nuclear option, in that starting brand new means designing a whole new setting - which IME represents about a real-world year of work before even getting to the point of asking who's interested in playing in it. I'd rather not do all that any more frequently than I have to, if it's all the same.

 

[Lanefan]

I've actually found that playing theater of the mind with 5e can help create far more compelling decisions in combat. When everything is on a grid and we're obeying the absurdly specific areas of effects of spells and mostly static physical positioning of all combatants, things are more rigid.

When you're using theater of the mind instead, then the GM is free to craft things a bit. "Sure, you can hit all four gnolls with the fireball, but you'll hit your fighter as well" rather than "If I center my fireball on this square, I can get all the bad guys and miss all my allies".

Make them roll to aim their AoE spells, my friend. Solves all these headaches.

The bolded is what you want to do. Now roll and let's see whether you in fact did it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure. My point is, however, that once that character does become lord of his own domain, what happens next? Where does or can the greater campaign go from there, and how? How can both the players and GM make further use of the background lore and stories that have built up over the course of play so far?

Completely ending the campaign and starting something new is to me the nuclear option, in that starting brand new means designing a whole new setting - which IME represents about a real-world year of work before even getting to the point of asking who's interested in playing in it. I'd rather not do all that any more frequently than I have to, if it's all the same.

There are OSR games specifically designed to answer that question. ACKS, for example, is all about players becoming rulers, how that works and what happens next.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It can also cause arguments, in exactly the situation you describe.

It generally hasn't for me. Certainly no less than any other kind of ruling that might be needed.

The grid is what turns every character into a perfect battle computer, able to determine all distances and ranges at all times, all during what's meant to be a hectic and deadly situation. Theater of the mind gets rid of that, and gives the ability for the GM to put in some interesting tactical decisions. Which, to be honest, 5e is fairly lacking.

Make them roll to aim their AoE spells, my friend. Solves all these headaches.

The bolded is what you want to do. Now roll and let's see whether you in fact did it.

I think what I've proposed works just as well, and doesn't require any additional rolls.