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
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
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="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7565256" data-attributes="member: 6778044"><p>I may be contradicting my earlier post, but as I’ve tried to dig deeper into these concepts I’m finding that, like so many others, methodology and experience are two entirely separate entities that are sometimes intertwined. Certain methods may be more predisposed to a certain style of play, but I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s rare for it to be incapable of producing that style of play.</p><p></p><p>This isn’t entirely a surprise to me, because much of how we play our game is a mashup of other stuff I/we are learning from elsewhere.</p><p></p><p>For example, due in large part to discussions with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others, we handle things like critical hits, misses, and death quite differently than the usual approach in D&D, and this also addresses fudging.</p><p></p><p>The primary reason I fudge occasionally is because of a choice we’ve made on mechanics. We would prefer a bell curve for skill checks, combat, etc., but we like a d20 better. So instead of using 3d6, we accept that most of the time the d20 is fine, but in those circumstances where we decide it’s not, then we adjust the consequences. So they were fine with me fudging.</p><p></p><p>But some people are strongly against fudging. And if I know that, then I don’t fudge with that group.</p><p></p><p>So I started rolling attack rolls in front of the players, and they would know when I was fudging. There were still no objections, but occasionally somebody would say, “nah, that’s fine. Let it ride.”</p><p></p><p>An interesting thing is that the players who objected to fudging and wanted to “always let it ride” were usually not the ones accepting their character’s death under these circumstances. They would accept the fudging without question.</p><p></p><p>But it got me thinking. Who is better able to decide if it’s the character’s time than the player that created them? Why can’t the player decide to fudge the die? Would it be different if I let them make the initial decision?</p><p></p><p>We typically have at least three PCs each, but some characters are more precious than others. Also, sometimes the current fiction implies the characters’ survival is more important. </p><p></p><p>A lot of the time it’s just death, but they have become more dramatic. We still have the underlying rules for guidance. Sometimes they let the death saves decide. Other times they have decided that even with help, they can’t be saved.</p><p></p><p>I can’t say that we experienced any of these to be “better” than the others. They didn’t affect the realism of our game, because we continued to make the experience - the content “realistic.”</p><p></p><p>I think our goal of a “realistic” game does have an impact on how these rules are used in our game. Our changes to the math of death saves was done to be “more realistic,” in that we felt it was unrealistic for a character who</p><p>Is reduced to 0 hp has a 60%+ chance of surviving without any assistance at all. Our falling rules were modeled after when science tells us you have a 50% chance of dying. But in all these cases it’s really just a feel, not true fact. And it’s generally more about the math than the method.</p><p></p><p>But others might argue our death mechanic is less realistic. That we don’t get to choose when we live or die and that it should be the dice that do so. </p><p></p><p>I’d argue that the person (the character) isn’t. The player is making that decision*, and the only thing that changed is which player decides - the DM or the player who created the character. And for us, it’s sometimes a joint decision, even including other players.</p><p></p><p>But not every player will like it, or play in good faith, etc.</p><p></p><p>So I agree that the method might have an impact, or make it easier or more difficult, but ultimately I think the concept of realism in a game is more about the experience than the mechanics. But I’ll also acknowledge that for many players the mechanics have an equal or greater importance than realism for their gaming experience.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>*This ties into my increasing belief that there is a difference between player agency and character agency, a topic for another day. Because it’s even more complicated than this one.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ilbranteloth, post: 7565256, member: 6778044"] I may be contradicting my earlier post, but as I’ve tried to dig deeper into these concepts I’m finding that, like so many others, methodology and experience are two entirely separate entities that are sometimes intertwined. Certain methods may be more predisposed to a certain style of play, but I’m coming to the conclusion that it’s rare for it to be incapable of producing that style of play. This isn’t entirely a surprise to me, because much of how we play our game is a mashup of other stuff I/we are learning from elsewhere. For example, due in large part to discussions with [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and others, we handle things like critical hits, misses, and death quite differently than the usual approach in D&D, and this also addresses fudging. The primary reason I fudge occasionally is because of a choice we’ve made on mechanics. We would prefer a bell curve for skill checks, combat, etc., but we like a d20 better. So instead of using 3d6, we accept that most of the time the d20 is fine, but in those circumstances where we decide it’s not, then we adjust the consequences. So they were fine with me fudging. But some people are strongly against fudging. And if I know that, then I don’t fudge with that group. So I started rolling attack rolls in front of the players, and they would know when I was fudging. There were still no objections, but occasionally somebody would say, “nah, that’s fine. Let it ride.” An interesting thing is that the players who objected to fudging and wanted to “always let it ride” were usually not the ones accepting their character’s death under these circumstances. They would accept the fudging without question. But it got me thinking. Who is better able to decide if it’s the character’s time than the player that created them? Why can’t the player decide to fudge the die? Would it be different if I let them make the initial decision? We typically have at least three PCs each, but some characters are more precious than others. Also, sometimes the current fiction implies the characters’ survival is more important. A lot of the time it’s just death, but they have become more dramatic. We still have the underlying rules for guidance. Sometimes they let the death saves decide. Other times they have decided that even with help, they can’t be saved. I can’t say that we experienced any of these to be “better” than the others. They didn’t affect the realism of our game, because we continued to make the experience - the content “realistic.” I think our goal of a “realistic” game does have an impact on how these rules are used in our game. Our changes to the math of death saves was done to be “more realistic,” in that we felt it was unrealistic for a character who Is reduced to 0 hp has a 60%+ chance of surviving without any assistance at all. Our falling rules were modeled after when science tells us you have a 50% chance of dying. But in all these cases it’s really just a feel, not true fact. And it’s generally more about the math than the method. But others might argue our death mechanic is less realistic. That we don’t get to choose when we live or die and that it should be the dice that do so. I’d argue that the person (the character) isn’t. The player is making that decision*, and the only thing that changed is which player decides - the DM or the player who created the character. And for us, it’s sometimes a joint decision, even including other players. But not every player will like it, or play in good faith, etc. So I agree that the method might have an impact, or make it easier or more difficult, but ultimately I think the concept of realism in a game is more about the experience than the mechanics. But I’ll also acknowledge that for many players the mechanics have an equal or greater importance than realism for their gaming experience. *This ties into my increasing belief that there is a difference between player agency and character agency, a topic for another day. Because it’s even more complicated than this one. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life
Top