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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7576909" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>No it's not. I've sat, and I've graded, competitive examinations. They are nothing like combat.</p><p></p><p>Even as competitoins, they are different - a race or an exam is an attempt to do better than another <em>at a common task</em>. Combat is an attempt to best another by preventing them doing the same to you. And this can be seen in mechanical resolution terms: an attempt to adapt Runequest's combat resolution rules for racing would break down pretty quickly, because there is no analogue in a race (or an exam) of the Runequest <em>parry</em> skill.</p><p></p><p>(Systems otherwise as different as BW and Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic are able to cope with this by dropping RQ's separate attack and parry stats, and resolving fights as opposed checks, which can also be adapted to running races.)</p><p></p><p>Furthermore, if all competition is combat then that generates obvious absurdities, like a poetry slam or battle of the bands being part of the combat "pillar" rather than the social "pillar".</p><p></p><p>The 5e "pillars" tell us about the design, and focus of play, of 5e. They are not, and don't even purport to be, a general analytical framework for RPGing.</p><p></p><p>So does a joust belong to the <em>social</em> rather than the <em>combat</em> pillar if it is being done to win the heart of an admirer? At least as I understand it, the pillars are meant to be characterised by some combination of <em>what is going on in the fiction</em> and <em>how that is resolved at the table</em>, not <em>what it is hoped success in the action might facilitiate</em>.</p><p></p><p>What information is conveyed by this? In 5e D&D, to describe it as "exploration" tells us something about (i) what is happening in the fiction, and (ii) how that will be handled at the table - in particular, via the back-and-forth of free narration between player(s) and GM, and perhaps the occasional check if the player declares that his/her PC looks around, or picks something up, or whatever.</p><p></p><p>In my Prince Valiant game, there's no back-and-forth here: there's just framing. To describe it as "exploration" in the 5e D&D sense is to actively misdescribe both the techniques in use, and the table experience.</p><p></p><p>In my Traveller game, when checks are made to successfully make an interstellar jump, there is a standard subsystem that is followed, and if the checks are successful then the next stage of play is to narrate the PCs's ship's arrival at the destination world. Again, it has little to nothing in common with 5e's "exploration".</p><p></p><p>On-world travel in Classic Traveller is much closer to 5e's exploration; it's for that very reason that I've repeatedly characterised it, in threads over the past year or so, as the weakest part of the Traveller rules, and disappointing in comparison to the tightness of the other sub-systems.</p><p></p><p>Huh? I've thought about different elements of play, and how they related to mechanics. long before WotC published 5e. </p><p></p><p>But it's not doing this! It's leading you into repeated misdescriptions and mischaracterisations. For instance, the fact that you envisage travel in my Prince Valiant game as being like 5e D&D's exploration reveals that you <em>don't understand</em> what is happening at the table. It's actually closer to your concept of "downtime", but that woudl also be misleading because it is occurring in the course of what you would call an "adventure".</p><p></p><p>WotC in 4e distinguished <em>exploration</em> from <em>encounters</em>, and distinguished the latter into combat and non-combat resolution. That is a useful framework for 4e; it broadly maps onto the Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic distinction between transition scenes and acion scenes, although the latter have no combat/non-combat breakdown.</p><p></p><p>It would just distort understanding of 4e to insist that social skill challenges be thought about differently from travel skill challenges, or to insist on analysing travel skill challenges through the lens of <em>exploration</em> as that concept works in 4e.</p><p></p><p>And mutatis mutandis for other RPG systems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7576909, member: 42582"] No it's not. I've sat, and I've graded, competitive examinations. They are nothing like combat. Even as competitoins, they are different - a race or an exam is an attempt to do better than another [I]at a common task[/I]. Combat is an attempt to best another by preventing them doing the same to you. And this can be seen in mechanical resolution terms: an attempt to adapt Runequest's combat resolution rules for racing would break down pretty quickly, because there is no analogue in a race (or an exam) of the Runequest [I]parry[/I] skill. (Systems otherwise as different as BW and Marvel Heroic/Cortex+ Heroic are able to cope with this by dropping RQ's separate attack and parry stats, and resolving fights as opposed checks, which can also be adapted to running races.) Furthermore, if all competition is combat then that generates obvious absurdities, like a poetry slam or battle of the bands being part of the combat "pillar" rather than the social "pillar". The 5e "pillars" tell us about the design, and focus of play, of 5e. They are not, and don't even purport to be, a general analytical framework for RPGing. So does a joust belong to the [i]social[/i] rather than the [i]combat[/i] pillar if it is being done to win the heart of an admirer? At least as I understand it, the pillars are meant to be characterised by some combination of [i]what is going on in the fiction[/i] and [i]how that is resolved at the table[/i], not [i]what it is hoped success in the action might facilitiate[/i]. What information is conveyed by this? In 5e D&D, to describe it as "exploration" tells us something about (i) what is happening in the fiction, and (ii) how that will be handled at the table - in particular, via the back-and-forth of free narration between player(s) and GM, and perhaps the occasional check if the player declares that his/her PC looks around, or picks something up, or whatever. In my Prince Valiant game, there's no back-and-forth here: there's just framing. To describe it as "exploration" in the 5e D&D sense is to actively misdescribe both the techniques in use, and the table experience. In my Traveller game, when checks are made to successfully make an interstellar jump, there is a standard subsystem that is followed, and if the checks are successful then the next stage of play is to narrate the PCs's ship's arrival at the destination world. Again, it has little to nothing in common with 5e's "exploration". On-world travel in Classic Traveller is much closer to 5e's exploration; it's for that very reason that I've repeatedly characterised it, in threads over the past year or so, as the weakest part of the Traveller rules, and disappointing in comparison to the tightness of the other sub-systems. Huh? I've thought about different elements of play, and how they related to mechanics. long before WotC published 5e. But it's not doing this! It's leading you into repeated misdescriptions and mischaracterisations. For instance, the fact that you envisage travel in my Prince Valiant game as being like 5e D&D's exploration reveals that you [i]don't understand[/i] what is happening at the table. It's actually closer to your concept of "downtime", but that woudl also be misleading because it is occurring in the course of what you would call an "adventure". WotC in 4e distinguished [i]exploration[/i] from [i]encounters[/i], and distinguished the latter into combat and non-combat resolution. That is a useful framework for 4e; it broadly maps onto the Marvel Heroic RP/Cortex+ Heroic distinction between transition scenes and acion scenes, although the latter have no combat/non-combat breakdown. It would just distort understanding of 4e to insist that social skill challenges be thought about differently from travel skill challenges, or to insist on analysing travel skill challenges through the lens of [i]exploration[/i] as that concept works in 4e. And mutatis mutandis for other RPG systems. [/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