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 coming! 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
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: 8529036" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>I was thinking it would be fruitful to get into the contents of arrows. Had the wail not exhausted, then character movespaces would contain other valid choices, so what they subsequently said would have differed. Had character motives differed, then the process they chose to execute would differ, thus having different results.</p><p></p><p>The complaint seems to be resolving motives and constraints in fiction, in system, but that is exactly what is implied by F > S > F. We do at times just resolve in fiction as F > F. That's more common outside combat. Remember that 5e* DM doesn't even call for combat if the outcome is inevitable. So in the comparable DW cases, its F > Hack and Slash > F.</p><p></p><p>So - <strong>arrow contents</strong>, to get started</p><p></p><p><strong>F > S</strong></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Choices </strong>- that invoke one process rather than another ("<em>I'm holding my ground for a second to see which way it goes, and then I'm diving to the side I think is safe.</em>"</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Assertions </strong>- that dial-in parameters ("<em>I draw my rapier and fleche!</em>")</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Colour </strong>- how the thing is done, that might turn out to be meaningful ("<em>I'm shaking while I do it, barely controlling my fear of it</em>") and open up or affirm narrative space</li> </ul><p><strong>S > F</strong></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Constraints </strong>- that change what is legitimate ("<em>Drusilia makes a save and fails - taking her third level of exhaustion.</em>")</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Informs </strong>- that affirm changes to what is effective ("<em>Your hit barely scratches it</em>") and might produce motives</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"><strong>Colour </strong>- how the thing is done, that might turn out to be meaningful ("<em>She laughs 'I didn't realise you were so weak! Why fight small man?' and couches her club</em>") and open up or affirm narrative space</li> </ul><p>We should also detail the contents of <strong>F > F</strong> and <strong>S > S </strong>arrows, so that we can see how they differ. Thinking about what is in fictional position, its definition is still not complete. In <strong>valid</strong>, I have legitimate and effective, but I also need motivated. Because the moves that a player will choose are those in the intersection of legitimate, effective and motivated. Effective is only really justified on account of it being normally a very strong factor in what is motivated! It is seldom the only factor and sometimes not the strongest factor (consider arguments over following other motives, over effectiveness!)</p><p></p><p>Suppose I say that player's fictional position is the intersection of everything that is legitimate for them to say, and everything they are motivated to say (which very much includes everything that would be effective for them to say, but helps me understand why effectiveness alone doesn't always predict the moves actually chosen.) When Clement and Drusilia are caught up in mortal battle, they have overwhelming motives in its regard. If their attack reach is 5', and they are 20' away, and they are motivated to attack, then they have an overwhelming motive to choose closing moves. Or if they fear they can't make effective attacks, they have a motive to do something else. They're unlikely to choose to flap their arms like a bird, although it would be legitimate (it's allowed), they have no motive to do so. This is to consider fictional position as predictive of player moves, which it necessarily must to be useful as a construct. (Consider the alternative, a construct for fictional positioning that failed to have any predictive power, or worse still predicted moves players never chose.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>Had the player spoken differently, deception would not have been involved. I only needed to consider the possibility of a roll because of that deception. The player had a visible internal struggle and then confessed that the fictional truth is that Arrasmus was going to tell a white lie.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe I misunderstand the bolded part. Are you supposing that 5e* DM isn't using situational advantage or inspiration? As I have said more than once up-thread, 5e* urges DM to exercise the <strong>entire power</strong> granted to them in 5th edition RAW.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Agreed that DW does more work to make that so. The design intent is clearer in the text and the common structure of moves aligns well with it. Principles that help ensure they are grasped and upheld in the intended way are included in the text.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think Stonetop is an example of a 'module' for DW, or have a look at "I'm on a boat!"</p><p></p><p>I find that 5th edition modules contain a few bones that 5e* can pick clean. We wanted to run ToA because of nostalgia for Isle of Dread + Tomb of Horrors. It captures the Isle of Dread part quite well (or at least, you can make it do that), but the Tomb is an over-architectured, disappointment. My next campaign - Archipelago - is my own work.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8529036, member: 71699"] I was thinking it would be fruitful to get into the contents of arrows. Had the wail not exhausted, then character movespaces would contain other valid choices, so what they subsequently said would have differed. Had character motives differed, then the process they chose to execute would differ, thus having different results. The complaint seems to be resolving motives and constraints in fiction, in system, but that is exactly what is implied by F > S > F. We do at times just resolve in fiction as F > F. That's more common outside combat. Remember that 5e* DM doesn't even call for combat if the outcome is inevitable. So in the comparable DW cases, its F > Hack and Slash > F. So - [B]arrow contents[/B], to get started [B]F > S[/B] [LIST] [*][B]Choices [/B]- that invoke one process rather than another ("[I]I'm holding my ground for a second to see which way it goes, and then I'm diving to the side I think is safe.[/I]" [*][B]Assertions [/B]- that dial-in parameters ("[I]I draw my rapier and fleche![/I]") [*][B]Colour [/B]- how the thing is done, that might turn out to be meaningful ("[I]I'm shaking while I do it, barely controlling my fear of it[/I]") and open up or affirm narrative space [/LIST] [B]S > F[/B] [LIST] [*][B]Constraints [/B]- that change what is legitimate ("[I]Drusilia makes a save and fails - taking her third level of exhaustion.[/I]") [*][B]Informs [/B]- that affirm changes to what is effective ("[I]Your hit barely scratches it[/I]") and might produce motives [*][B]Colour [/B]- how the thing is done, that might turn out to be meaningful ("[I]She laughs 'I didn't realise you were so weak! Why fight small man?' and couches her club[/I]") and open up or affirm narrative space [/LIST] We should also detail the contents of [B]F > F[/B] and [B]S > S [/B]arrows, so that we can see how they differ. Thinking about what is in fictional position, its definition is still not complete. In [B]valid[/B], I have legitimate and effective, but I also need motivated. Because the moves that a player will choose are those in the intersection of legitimate, effective and motivated. Effective is only really justified on account of it being normally a very strong factor in what is motivated! It is seldom the only factor and sometimes not the strongest factor (consider arguments over following other motives, over effectiveness!) Suppose I say that player's fictional position is the intersection of everything that is legitimate for them to say, and everything they are motivated to say (which very much includes everything that would be effective for them to say, but helps me understand why effectiveness alone doesn't always predict the moves actually chosen.) When Clement and Drusilia are caught up in mortal battle, they have overwhelming motives in its regard. If their attack reach is 5', and they are 20' away, and they are motivated to attack, then they have an overwhelming motive to choose closing moves. Or if they fear they can't make effective attacks, they have a motive to do something else. They're unlikely to choose to flap their arms like a bird, although it would be legitimate (it's allowed), they have no motive to do so. This is to consider fictional position as predictive of player moves, which it necessarily must to be useful as a construct. (Consider the alternative, a construct for fictional positioning that failed to have any predictive power, or worse still predicted moves players never chose.) Had the player spoken differently, deception would not have been involved. I only needed to consider the possibility of a roll because of that deception. The player had a visible internal struggle and then confessed that the fictional truth is that Arrasmus was going to tell a white lie. Maybe I misunderstand the bolded part. Are you supposing that 5e* DM isn't using situational advantage or inspiration? As I have said more than once up-thread, 5e* urges DM to exercise the [B]entire power[/B] granted to them in 5th edition RAW. Agreed that DW does more work to make that so. The design intent is clearer in the text and the common structure of moves aligns well with it. Principles that help ensure they are grasped and upheld in the intended way are included in the text. I think Stonetop is an example of a 'module' for DW, or have a look at "I'm on a boat!" I find that 5th edition modules contain a few bones that 5e* can pick clean. We wanted to run ToA because of nostalgia for Isle of Dread + Tomb of Horrors. It captures the Isle of Dread part quite well (or at least, you can make it do that), but the Tomb is an over-architectured, disappointment. My next campaign - Archipelago - is my own work. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e* - D&D-now
Top