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
5e* - D&D-now
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="clearstream" data-source="post: 8527898" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>Based on <strong>I</strong> bring to C*, it is transparent that what the DM says is informed by what the players say. C* says "<strong>follows</strong>"! Why did DM start with a sinking ship in a sea? Because that followed from "<em>cold-sea cultist</em>". Why is there are ziggurat on the taiga. Because that followed from "<em>cold-sea cultist</em>". Inspiration for the conversation is shared around the table. DM is adding something - I don't say that they do not - and they are deciding how things turn out, but they are not unmotivated anarchists, and they are not deciding who characters are or what they say or do.</p><p></p><p></p><p>There is no contrast here other than that which lives in a given C* DM. How do I make that clearer?</p><p></p><p>What has been joined to the conversation? Player fiction and actions. What must DM say? Something that follows the conversation, potentially adding to it from, or in line with, their fiction. One possible source of confusion is that when I say "preestablished" I am thinking generally of foregoing. What is already in place. I think preestablished fiction is more contingent on DM's side, than player's. What DM says is informed by their preestablished fiction, but it is not locked in until it joins the conversation.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Given what DM says is motivated by - <strong>follows</strong> - what players say, it is indeed likely the ziggurat will be in the direction their shared fiction has placed it. It could turn out that something else is there, giving source to the rumours. The conversation isn't repetitive or inevitable. The players can be surprised by what they find, or the turn of events.</p><p></p><p></p><p>These doubts arise from assumptions projected onto the examples: principles that guide you to your interpretation of them. You might be wondering if C* players can say something like this:</p><p></p><p>"<em>There's a ship - the Kraken - that I sail on. As navigator.</em>" That might have been part of prior conversation at the envisioned table. Can DM say "<em>You lash out with your flail, but can't land a hit on the bear man.</em>" They can. When would they say it? That depends on what they have in mind, what has been preestablished, and nuances in their conversation. C* is reliant on principles that live in the group, not the rules. For some groups, it might be okay for player to say "<em>I lash the bear man with my flail. The chains connect and he goes down.</em>" Player could say "<em>Bear men! They killed my brother. Filled with rage I lash him with my flail.</em>" So that is now true. And DM might narrate "<em>Fueled by your anger, the chains connect and he goes down. He doesn't move... you might have killed him.</em>"</p><p></p><p>I think C* does something to indicate the basic game loop and divide roles. It says something about establishing fiction and following the conversation. It leaves so much unsaid, that in my view we only grasp how to use C* because of what we bring to it. Thus what I might call your misapprehensions, are not "misapprehensions" at all. Based what <strong>you</strong> bring to C*, you arrive at a DM monologue. Whereas I do not. This underscores the point made by [USER=6807784]@Shardstone[/USER].</p><p></p><p>[NOTE EDITS]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8527898, member: 71699"] Based on [B]I[/B] bring to C*, it is transparent that what the DM says is informed by what the players say. C* says "[B]follows[/B]"! Why did DM start with a sinking ship in a sea? Because that followed from "[I]cold-sea cultist[/I]". Why is there are ziggurat on the taiga. Because that followed from "[I]cold-sea cultist[/I]". Inspiration for the conversation is shared around the table. DM is adding something - I don't say that they do not - and they are deciding how things turn out, but they are not unmotivated anarchists, and they are not deciding who characters are or what they say or do. There is no contrast here other than that which lives in a given C* DM. How do I make that clearer? What has been joined to the conversation? Player fiction and actions. What must DM say? Something that follows the conversation, potentially adding to it from, or in line with, their fiction. One possible source of confusion is that when I say "preestablished" I am thinking generally of foregoing. What is already in place. I think preestablished fiction is more contingent on DM's side, than player's. What DM says is informed by their preestablished fiction, but it is not locked in until it joins the conversation. Given what DM says is motivated by - [B]follows[/B] - what players say, it is indeed likely the ziggurat will be in the direction their shared fiction has placed it. It could turn out that something else is there, giving source to the rumours. The conversation isn't repetitive or inevitable. The players can be surprised by what they find, or the turn of events. These doubts arise from assumptions projected onto the examples: principles that guide you to your interpretation of them. You might be wondering if C* players can say something like this: "[I]There's a ship - the Kraken - that I sail on. As navigator.[/I]" That might have been part of prior conversation at the envisioned table. Can DM say "[I]You lash out with your flail, but can't land a hit on the bear man.[/I]" They can. When would they say it? That depends on what they have in mind, what has been preestablished, and nuances in their conversation. C* is reliant on principles that live in the group, not the rules. For some groups, it might be okay for player to say "[I]I lash the bear man with my flail. The chains connect and he goes down.[/I]" Player could say "[I]Bear men! They killed my brother. Filled with rage I lash him with my flail.[/I]" So that is now true. And DM might narrate "[I]Fueled by your anger, the chains connect and he goes down. He doesn't move... you might have killed him.[/I]" I think C* does something to indicate the basic game loop and divide roles. It says something about establishing fiction and following the conversation. It leaves so much unsaid, that in my view we only grasp how to use C* because of what we bring to it. Thus what I might call your misapprehensions, are not "misapprehensions" at all. Based what [B]you[/B] bring to C*, you arrive at a DM monologue. Whereas I do not. This underscores the point made by [USER=6807784]@Shardstone[/USER]. [NOTE EDITS] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e* - D&D-now
Top