Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ComradeGnull" data-source="post: 5988194" data-attributes="member: 6685694">You're completely misunderstanding the intent and how this works in practice.&nbsp; It isn't about trying to frustrate the DM on the fly, it is about the DM and the players being in agreement before hand that they are going to take a more flexible approach to the narrative structure of the game.Just like deciding to use DM arbitration rather than formal rules is a mutual decision between players and the DM to take a more flexible approach to resolving how actions play out.'Become' a narrative game?&nbsp; Any of the examples that have been given so far work perfectly well in the game as it exists right now.&nbsp; I haven't seen anyone asking for rule changes in this thread to make D&amp;D play like some other, more narrative structured game.&nbsp; Just pointing out that the decision to take a flexible approach to narrative structure is roughly equivalent to taking a flexible approach to resolving actions in terms of how it impacts the game, provided everyone is on the same page.Here's how I see it:1) I don't care if WotC publishes structured narratives (adventures, settings, etc.), because I can always either ignore them or make my own modifications.2) I would like WotC to publish detailed rules so that I have them available to use if I need them.3) If you play by the published rules for a system by 4e, it moves some decision making into the hands of players, in the same way that spells move some decision making into the hands of wizards.3) I'm currently trying to understand why people who don't want published rules can't ignore them- again, talking primarily about things like resolving tasks in combat, which is where 90% of the rubber hits the road in this discussion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ComradeGnull, post: 5988194, member: 6685694"] You're completely misunderstanding the intent and how this works in practice. It isn't about trying to frustrate the DM on the fly, it is about the DM and the players being in agreement before hand that they are going to take a more flexible approach to the narrative structure of the game. Just like deciding to use DM arbitration rather than formal rules is a mutual decision between players and the DM to take a more flexible approach to resolving how actions play out. 'Become' a narrative game? Any of the examples that have been given so far work perfectly well in the game as it exists right now. I haven't seen anyone asking for rule changes in this thread to make D&D play like some other, more narrative structured game. Just pointing out that the decision to take a flexible approach to narrative structure is roughly equivalent to taking a flexible approach to resolving actions in terms of how it impacts the game, provided everyone is on the same page. Here's how I see it: 1) I don't care if WotC publishes structured narratives (adventures, settings, etc.), because I can always either ignore them or make my own modifications. 2) I would like WotC to publish detailed rules so that I have them available to use if I need them. 3) If you play by the published rules for a system by 4e, it moves some decision making into the hands of players, in the same way that spells move some decision making into the hands of wizards. 3) I'm currently trying to understand why people who don't want published rules can't ignore them- again, talking primarily about things like resolving tasks in combat, which is where 90% of the rubber hits the road in this discussion. [/QUOTE]

Verification