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: 8534952" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>And just to remind ourselves</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think you are <strong>not </strong>resting your case upon the presence of a stochastic method for choosing between outcomes, because you say</p><p></p><p></p><p>Thus you are making an assumption that in C* making a call is unfettered. It's not shaped and directed. But C* admonishes DM - "<em>don't decide in a way that doesn't accord with your <strong>principles</strong>.</em>" Therefore DM may very well make their call according to general principles applied to concrete states of affairs - such as pre-established fiction / foregoing conversation - and it will be shaped and directed.</p><p></p><p>The second part of what you say could seem to reintroduce doubt on that score. [That is, doubt on the possibility of finding anything out when arbitrating by principles rather than roll.]</p><p></p><p></p><p>It might help to have in mind Alan Calhamer's Diplomacy here. According to what you say, as France I can't learn what happens next, because I decide exactly what moves I will be making. There's no uncertainty in outcomes in Diplomacy: among players all things are decided. And yet, everyone at the table - including France - is surprised when they learn what happens next. There is the possibility that a C* DM is following a principle of play as a form of negotiation, in which their moves will only be settled in full consideration of the moves of the players.</p><p></p><p>It should be obvious - and maybe it is - but what counts is that all participants can add things to the conversation, and that what they add must follow [the implication is a principled negotiation]. The adding itself can be an asymmetrical negotiation between them, but it's not asymmetrical in power, it is asymmetrical in scope. There is a lusory attitude required to bring an honesty or clarity to this. What should happen when the arch-cat Gog attempts to stalk the hellhound Hemlock? Well, in our prior fiction we learned that... and so... but what about... in that case I'll... and everyone learns what happens next. If one should have doubts, it should be doubt that DM ever gets to make calls due to uncertainty in C*, rather than that making such calls will somehow invalidate playing to find out.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8534952, member: 71699"] And just to remind ourselves I think you are [B]not [/B]resting your case upon the presence of a stochastic method for choosing between outcomes, because you say Thus you are making an assumption that in C* making a call is unfettered. It's not shaped and directed. But C* admonishes DM - "[I]don't decide in a way that doesn't accord with your [B]principles[/B].[/I]" Therefore DM may very well make their call according to general principles applied to concrete states of affairs - such as pre-established fiction / foregoing conversation - and it will be shaped and directed. The second part of what you say could seem to reintroduce doubt on that score. [That is, doubt on the possibility of finding anything out when arbitrating by principles rather than roll.] It might help to have in mind Alan Calhamer's Diplomacy here. According to what you say, as France I can't learn what happens next, because I decide exactly what moves I will be making. There's no uncertainty in outcomes in Diplomacy: among players all things are decided. And yet, everyone at the table - including France - is surprised when they learn what happens next. There is the possibility that a C* DM is following a principle of play as a form of negotiation, in which their moves will only be settled in full consideration of the moves of the players. It should be obvious - and maybe it is - but what counts is that all participants can add things to the conversation, and that what they add must follow [the implication is a principled negotiation]. The adding itself can be an asymmetrical negotiation between them, but it's not asymmetrical in power, it is asymmetrical in scope. There is a lusory attitude required to bring an honesty or clarity to this. What should happen when the arch-cat Gog attempts to stalk the hellhound Hemlock? Well, in our prior fiction we learned that... and so... but what about... in that case I'll... and everyone learns what happens next. If one should have doubts, it should be doubt that DM ever gets to make calls due to uncertainty in C*, rather than that making such calls will somehow invalidate playing to find out. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
5e* - D&D-now
Top