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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Attacking defenseless NPCs
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="Umbran" data-source="post: 7627189" data-attributes="member: 177"><p>And like I just said with robus, I am saying that this has failure modes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No. Incorrect. Wrong. I didn't say that. You are missing the point, and thereby demonstrating my point in the process. </p><p></p><p>Nowhere in my point is anyone being a jerk. Nobody is being unreasonable. Nobody is acting with ill-intent. Get that idea out of your head, or we will talk past each other. They are just carrying on with play in the best way they can. They are coming at play, however, with different desires and different thoughts. Our failure to connect on this point is *exactly* the kind of failure that can hit gameplay, even when everyone is being reasonable. We simply have slightly different goals, expectations, mental patterns, and things going on in our heads, because we aren't a hivemind.</p><p></p><p>We repeatedly say that players must have consistency of rules and processes so they can make reasoned, informed decisions. They must have an understanding of the odds in order for them to propose approaches. But, that means they are basing their choices on *expectations* about how things will happen. There's nothing jerkish about that. Meanwhile, the GM is not a *slave* to consistency. They are not jerkish for deviating from it from time to time. But that means we will have occasions where the player and the GM are not in synch, and that's where we can get tripped up. The basic form of play needs an allowance for that. </p><p></p><p>The problem with your play loop, and it's idealized nature, is that the player and GM roles must be kept pure for it to function as described, and that never actually happens. To be realistic, it needs to include an optional negotiation sub-loop. Because real human social interaction always calls for bits of negotiation for consensus to form. This is where, "Yes, and..." lives, in this negotiation. Most of the time, the player will just accept the GM's proposals. But, we need a loop to build consensus when the player's not on board with the proposal, and the GM and player can come to some understanding or compromise.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7627189, member: 177"] And like I just said with robus, I am saying that this has failure modes. No. Incorrect. Wrong. I didn't say that. You are missing the point, and thereby demonstrating my point in the process. Nowhere in my point is anyone being a jerk. Nobody is being unreasonable. Nobody is acting with ill-intent. Get that idea out of your head, or we will talk past each other. They are just carrying on with play in the best way they can. They are coming at play, however, with different desires and different thoughts. Our failure to connect on this point is *exactly* the kind of failure that can hit gameplay, even when everyone is being reasonable. We simply have slightly different goals, expectations, mental patterns, and things going on in our heads, because we aren't a hivemind. We repeatedly say that players must have consistency of rules and processes so they can make reasoned, informed decisions. They must have an understanding of the odds in order for them to propose approaches. But, that means they are basing their choices on *expectations* about how things will happen. There's nothing jerkish about that. Meanwhile, the GM is not a *slave* to consistency. They are not jerkish for deviating from it from time to time. But that means we will have occasions where the player and the GM are not in synch, and that's where we can get tripped up. The basic form of play needs an allowance for that. The problem with your play loop, and it's idealized nature, is that the player and GM roles must be kept pure for it to function as described, and that never actually happens. To be realistic, it needs to include an optional negotiation sub-loop. Because real human social interaction always calls for bits of negotiation for consensus to form. This is where, "Yes, and..." lives, in this negotiation. Most of the time, the player will just accept the GM's proposals. But, we need a loop to build consensus when the player's not on board with the proposal, and the GM and player can come to some understanding or compromise. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Attacking defenseless NPCs
Top