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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"
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="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6226890" data-attributes="member: 59082"><p>It seemed that with 4e's "Points of Light" approach, they tried making a D&D without a specific setting, although there still was a "lore" in terms of cosmology, Nentir Vale stuff, etc. </p><p></p><p>I see the optimal approach as being both: give guidelines to help players create their own worlds, but also provide examples of how it can be done.</p><p></p><p>Wait, isn't that what they've always done? I think they've always <em>tried </em>to do what you're talking about, but end up becoming overly enamored with their own creations.</p><p></p><p>I think this is why some among the OSR don't like Dragonlance - it wasn't modular, it wasn't something you could drop into your own campaign world (or at least not easily) and "make your own." I don't think Dragonlance itself was a problem, but that the increased emphasis on this style of play and feeling that the old school approach was largely neglected...at least until more recently.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is a good point, but don't you think that this is immersion is facilitated more or less depending upon the specific rules used? I actually think that excessive use of a battlemat reduces character immersion, makes it easier to say "My paladin does this" rather than "I do this" simply by virtue of having a little metal dude in front of you on the table, that is your character. It takes it out of the mind and onto the battlemat. </p><p></p><p>Actually, you go on to say something similar...</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You seem to be advocating for a "less is more" approach for deeper immersion. Yeah or nay?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I added bold-face, because I would never want to play a version of D&D in which the character sheet was a short paragraph. D&D is not a purely "story game." Part of its charm is that it is a <em>role </em>and <em>roll </em>playing game. I would guess that absolutely no, or at least very few, D&D players want to do away with crunch - all of us like crunch to some extent, and if some don't they are either fooling themselves, or they'll soon move on to the Indie world.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, exactly. To be honest, I feel like in your post you've agreed and disagree with this very point. </p><p></p><p>I personally prefer a middle ground - maybe a two-page character sheet? A front with stats and a back with equipment and notes. Something like that. But I can see a place for a 1-4+ page character sheet, depending upon individual styles, and I hope that Next facilitates that. Less than a page and you start veering out of what D&D is (or has historically been, at least); more than 2-3 pages is fine, but not really my cup of tea.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting point here. I agree with the gist of it, that a lot depends upon individual cognitive styles. But let me be clear about one thing: I wasn't as much saying that "lack of structure leads to a broader or richer imaginative experience..," but more along the lines of this:</p><p></p><p><strong><em>Lack of specific content leads to a more richly active imaginative experience</em></strong>...</p><p></p><p>Here's a (hopefully) very clear example of what I'm getting at. Two statements:</p><p></p><p>A: "The cowled warrior drew a curved blade, which shimmered with an indigo hue, silver runic forms along the blade caressed by the light of the moon."</p><p></p><p>B: "The warrior, wearing a long black and grey robe with a sash around his face, covering all but his eyes, which were dark brown or black, pulled a weapon from a scabbard - a scimitar of approximately three feet in length, with a slight to moderate curve, more like a katana than a sickle - but with a smoother sweep than a katana, like a crescent moon. The scimitar was dark blue-black in color and glowed faintly. Along the length of the blade, from about six inches from the hilt--which was curved liked a stylized and angular S--were symbols of some unknown language; the runes extended to about three inches from the tip. Each symbol was about half the width of the blade. The moon was very bright, so the runes - which were probably made of some kind of silver or white metal or stone - glowed slightly."</p><p></p><p>I may be completely wrong, but I'm guessing that for most people, A is much more richly imaginative - it inspire more vivid imagery and, most importantly of all, it allows you, the reader, to generate your own imagery. The second paragraph, aside from being poorly and awkwardly written, gives so much detail that it leaves little to the imagination. Now you could say that for some people, they prefer (or need) those guides to create an image. Maybe that is so, but my point is that in the former you have more freedom, more opportunity, to activate your own imagination, wherein the latter I'm telling you what to imagine.</p><p></p><p>In other words, the purpose of sentence A above is to inspire <em>your </em>imaginative to activate, whereas B lets you remain passive, so your attention is more drawn to deciphering the words and putting them together than to allowing your imagination to fly</p><p></p><p>I tend to agree with something Ursula Le Guin said, that a writer should use as many words as are needed to tell a story - no more or less. This is individual and varies greatly by writer, and of course trends oscillate back and forth. I do think, however, that the general trend in various contexts - fantasy and science fiction literature, cinema, and RPGs, for instance - is towards more filler, more details, more words. This, I think, is at least partially reflective of our technology use - smartphones, internet, etc - all the stuff that "fills the void" of our consciousness and, I think, inhibits our own imaginative activity.</p><p></p><p>In other words, the trend has been away from self-generated imagination and towards externally manufactured simulation, yet I feel that we all want a more imaginative experience because it comes from us. Its like the difference in satisfaction between reading a good book and writing your own good book. The former is a lot of fun and can be very inspiring, but it isn't nearly as richly satisfying as the latter.</p><p></p><p><em>If </em>you're a writer, of course! But that's just an analogy .The experience of imagination and creativity is more universal, because we're all "imaginers," all creators.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 6226890, member: 59082"] It seemed that with 4e's "Points of Light" approach, they tried making a D&D without a specific setting, although there still was a "lore" in terms of cosmology, Nentir Vale stuff, etc. I see the optimal approach as being both: give guidelines to help players create their own worlds, but also provide examples of how it can be done. Wait, isn't that what they've always done? I think they've always [I]tried [/I]to do what you're talking about, but end up becoming overly enamored with their own creations. I think this is why some among the OSR don't like Dragonlance - it wasn't modular, it wasn't something you could drop into your own campaign world (or at least not easily) and "make your own." I don't think Dragonlance itself was a problem, but that the increased emphasis on this style of play and feeling that the old school approach was largely neglected...at least until more recently. This is a good point, but don't you think that this is immersion is facilitated more or less depending upon the specific rules used? I actually think that excessive use of a battlemat reduces character immersion, makes it easier to say "My paladin does this" rather than "I do this" simply by virtue of having a little metal dude in front of you on the table, that is your character. It takes it out of the mind and onto the battlemat. Actually, you go on to say something similar... You seem to be advocating for a "less is more" approach for deeper immersion. Yeah or nay? I added bold-face, because I would never want to play a version of D&D in which the character sheet was a short paragraph. D&D is not a purely "story game." Part of its charm is that it is a [I]role [/I]and [I]roll [/I]playing game. I would guess that absolutely no, or at least very few, D&D players want to do away with crunch - all of us like crunch to some extent, and if some don't they are either fooling themselves, or they'll soon move on to the Indie world. Yes, exactly. To be honest, I feel like in your post you've agreed and disagree with this very point. I personally prefer a middle ground - maybe a two-page character sheet? A front with stats and a back with equipment and notes. Something like that. But I can see a place for a 1-4+ page character sheet, depending upon individual styles, and I hope that Next facilitates that. Less than a page and you start veering out of what D&D is (or has historically been, at least); more than 2-3 pages is fine, but not really my cup of tea. Interesting point here. I agree with the gist of it, that a lot depends upon individual cognitive styles. But let me be clear about one thing: I wasn't as much saying that "lack of structure leads to a broader or richer imaginative experience..," but more along the lines of this: [B][I]Lack of specific content leads to a more richly active imaginative experience[/I][/B]... Here's a (hopefully) very clear example of what I'm getting at. Two statements: A: "The cowled warrior drew a curved blade, which shimmered with an indigo hue, silver runic forms along the blade caressed by the light of the moon." B: "The warrior, wearing a long black and grey robe with a sash around his face, covering all but his eyes, which were dark brown or black, pulled a weapon from a scabbard - a scimitar of approximately three feet in length, with a slight to moderate curve, more like a katana than a sickle - but with a smoother sweep than a katana, like a crescent moon. The scimitar was dark blue-black in color and glowed faintly. Along the length of the blade, from about six inches from the hilt--which was curved liked a stylized and angular S--were symbols of some unknown language; the runes extended to about three inches from the tip. Each symbol was about half the width of the blade. The moon was very bright, so the runes - which were probably made of some kind of silver or white metal or stone - glowed slightly." I may be completely wrong, but I'm guessing that for most people, A is much more richly imaginative - it inspire more vivid imagery and, most importantly of all, it allows you, the reader, to generate your own imagery. The second paragraph, aside from being poorly and awkwardly written, gives so much detail that it leaves little to the imagination. Now you could say that for some people, they prefer (or need) those guides to create an image. Maybe that is so, but my point is that in the former you have more freedom, more opportunity, to activate your own imagination, wherein the latter I'm telling you what to imagine. In other words, the purpose of sentence A above is to inspire [I]your [/I]imaginative to activate, whereas B lets you remain passive, so your attention is more drawn to deciphering the words and putting them together than to allowing your imagination to fly I tend to agree with something Ursula Le Guin said, that a writer should use as many words as are needed to tell a story - no more or less. This is individual and varies greatly by writer, and of course trends oscillate back and forth. I do think, however, that the general trend in various contexts - fantasy and science fiction literature, cinema, and RPGs, for instance - is towards more filler, more details, more words. This, I think, is at least partially reflective of our technology use - smartphones, internet, etc - all the stuff that "fills the void" of our consciousness and, I think, inhibits our own imaginative activity. In other words, the trend has been away from self-generated imagination and towards externally manufactured simulation, yet I feel that we all want a more imaginative experience because it comes from us. Its like the difference in satisfaction between reading a good book and writing your own good book. The former is a lot of fun and can be very inspiring, but it isn't nearly as richly satisfying as the latter. [I]If [/I]you're a writer, of course! But that's just an analogy .The experience of imagination and creativity is more universal, because we're all "imaginers," all creators. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"
Top