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: 7577022" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I honestly don't see the point of trying to establish some general classification of adventure fiction as either fighting, talking or exploring, especially when you concede that some events and activities are plural in their character.</p><p></p><p>These aren't classifications that I'm used to from criticism, and to me they don't seem to shed any interesting light. I've already pointed out that it doesn't cover building and repairing things - simply because this has never been a big part of D&D's action (cf Traveller, which - being set in a highly technological society - obviously treats this sort of thing very differently). Or, to give a different example, in my last Prince Valiant session there was a boar hunt, which created an opportunity for the PCs to shame an NPC they didn't like, and also an opportunity from some rivalry among the PCs as to who would get the kill. In that same session, there was a joust which provided an opportunity for making some new friendships and reinforcing some established enmities.</p><p></p><p>It seems to me to add nothing to my account of these events to try to decide whether they should be classed as combat, social or interaction. That is simply not a useful framework for either criticism or for play. (In 4e this could easily have been run as a skill challenge, moving between different social, Nature, and combat skills/abilities. I don't know what the proper way to handle it in 5e would be, but my sense is that, by default, it would require more GM manipulation of the fiction.)</p><p></p><p>And I don't know what it would mean for there to be too much, or not enough, of one or another sort of fiction. The fiction is what the fiction is. If players want more talking, then - provided the system allows for it - they'll declare such actions; likewise if they want more fighting. To me that seems a total non-problem.</p><p></p><p>To reiterate what I just said: in my experience players will create the fiction that they want, consistently with what the mechanics make room for. As GM I don't need to police the fiction; but when deciding what game to play, and when adjduciating a system as GM, I do need to understand how its mechanics work.</p><p></p><p>As an example, consider the BW Circles mechanic, which pertains to encountering old friends and enemies as one goes about one's business. In 5e D&D, such matters are an entirely GM-side decision; but in Burning Wheel, such things are frequently the outcome of a Circles check made by a player - and once such a mechanic is introduced, players will use it and that sort of thing will become a bigger part of play than it might otherwise be.</p><p></p><p>So if I want more Conan-style or Arthurian style chance encounters, then I should play a game with something like a Circles mechanic. Similarly, if I think a game with more talking would be fun, then I should play a game which enables players to change the fiction by declaring talky stuff. To repeat again what I said, in my experience if the mechanics are there, then - assuming the players are at all interested - the fiction will take care of itself. </p><p></p><p>(Also, re Circles checks: is this social or exploration? In 5e D&D the question doesn't even arise, because chance encounters don't fall under any of the pillars, being an entirely GM-side matter. In BW, the question doesn't make any sense, because BW doesn't have distinct "social" and "exploration" pillars. This is another example that illustrates the non-ubiquity of the 5e pillars.)</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7577022, member: 42582"] I honestly don't see the point of trying to establish some general classification of adventure fiction as either fighting, talking or exploring, especially when you concede that some events and activities are plural in their character. These aren't classifications that I'm used to from criticism, and to me they don't seem to shed any interesting light. I've already pointed out that it doesn't cover building and repairing things - simply because this has never been a big part of D&D's action (cf Traveller, which - being set in a highly technological society - obviously treats this sort of thing very differently). Or, to give a different example, in my last Prince Valiant session there was a boar hunt, which created an opportunity for the PCs to shame an NPC they didn't like, and also an opportunity from some rivalry among the PCs as to who would get the kill. In that same session, there was a joust which provided an opportunity for making some new friendships and reinforcing some established enmities. It seems to me to add nothing to my account of these events to try to decide whether they should be classed as combat, social or interaction. That is simply not a useful framework for either criticism or for play. (In 4e this could easily have been run as a skill challenge, moving between different social, Nature, and combat skills/abilities. I don't know what the proper way to handle it in 5e would be, but my sense is that, by default, it would require more GM manipulation of the fiction.) And I don't know what it would mean for there to be too much, or not enough, of one or another sort of fiction. The fiction is what the fiction is. If players want more talking, then - provided the system allows for it - they'll declare such actions; likewise if they want more fighting. To me that seems a total non-problem. To reiterate what I just said: in my experience players will create the fiction that they want, consistently with what the mechanics make room for. As GM I don't need to police the fiction; but when deciding what game to play, and when adjduciating a system as GM, I do need to understand how its mechanics work. As an example, consider the BW Circles mechanic, which pertains to encountering old friends and enemies as one goes about one's business. In 5e D&D, such matters are an entirely GM-side decision; but in Burning Wheel, such things are frequently the outcome of a Circles check made by a player - and once such a mechanic is introduced, players will use it and that sort of thing will become a bigger part of play than it might otherwise be. So if I want more Conan-style or Arthurian style chance encounters, then I should play a game with something like a Circles mechanic. Similarly, if I think a game with more talking would be fun, then I should play a game which enables players to change the fiction by declaring talky stuff. To repeat again what I said, in my experience if the mechanics are there, then - assuming the players are at all interested - the fiction will take care of itself. (Also, re Circles checks: is this social or exploration? In 5e D&D the question doesn't even arise, because chance encounters don't fall under any of the pillars, being an entirely GM-side matter. In BW, the question doesn't make any sense, because BW doesn't have distinct "social" and "exploration" pillars. This is another example that illustrates the non-ubiquity of the 5e pillars.) [/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