Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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
A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem
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="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6672969" data-attributes="member: 6775031"><p>That's part of it, but a larger part of it is that such things are not for the GM (or player) to decide, based on such meta-game context. Whether the GM decides that there is a box (or is not a box), that decision cannot possibly depend on whether or not the players ask, if the GM is to maintain the illusion of an objective reality. For a GM to maintain neutrality - for the GM to avoid <em>intentionally</em> empowering or disempowering the players - the decision would need to be based on the GM's prior knowledge of the world, or else it would need to be determined randomly.</p><p></p><p>As for rationing systems, that necessarily invokes meta-game resources. I'm not terribly familiar with the games you cite, but any resource which the players spend on behalf of their characters (or to further the story) is a meta-game mechanic which requires breaking from character stance in order to invoke. If the players have a limited pool of points to spend on adding elements to the game world (spend a Fate point or a Benny or something to add a box where none was described), then you're adding a gamist element (spend points now, or save for later) over narrative control (player defining the environment, beyond the scope of character ability), which is a double-whammy of illusion-shattering.</p><p></p><p>That's pretty much what I said in the second half of the sentence, which you didn't quote. Other games added in their own contrivances, because they didn't like the contrivances which Gygaxian play required.</p><p></p><p>Really, the whole matter of GNS theory is about priorities and personal preference. We'd all love to immerse ourselves in a great game where the story flowed naturally in an interesting manner, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. As soon as you build a game to focus on one element, you need to make compromises within the other elements. Personally, I can't stand narrative contrivance, and find that its inclusion actively detracts from any roleplaying experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6672969, member: 6775031"] That's part of it, but a larger part of it is that such things are not for the GM (or player) to decide, based on such meta-game context. Whether the GM decides that there is a box (or is not a box), that decision cannot possibly depend on whether or not the players ask, if the GM is to maintain the illusion of an objective reality. For a GM to maintain neutrality - for the GM to avoid [I]intentionally[/I] empowering or disempowering the players - the decision would need to be based on the GM's prior knowledge of the world, or else it would need to be determined randomly. As for rationing systems, that necessarily invokes meta-game resources. I'm not terribly familiar with the games you cite, but any resource which the players spend on behalf of their characters (or to further the story) is a meta-game mechanic which requires breaking from character stance in order to invoke. If the players have a limited pool of points to spend on adding elements to the game world (spend a Fate point or a Benny or something to add a box where none was described), then you're adding a gamist element (spend points now, or save for later) over narrative control (player defining the environment, beyond the scope of character ability), which is a double-whammy of illusion-shattering. That's pretty much what I said in the second half of the sentence, which you didn't quote. Other games added in their own contrivances, because they didn't like the contrivances which Gygaxian play required. Really, the whole matter of GNS theory is about priorities and personal preference. We'd all love to immerse ourselves in a great game where the story flowed naturally in an interesting manner, but that's not going to happen anytime soon. As soon as you build a game to focus on one element, you need to make compromises within the other elements. Personally, I can't stand narrative contrivance, and find that its inclusion actively detracts from any roleplaying experience. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
A case where the 'can try everything' dogma could be a problem
Top