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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6228221" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>A related problem is this:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">* Both in real life and in adventure fiction, people do all sorts of crazy, suboptimal things;</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* While in real life this sort of stuff can get you hurt, in adventure fiction those crazy and sub-optimal things tend to lead to success, or at least excitement, rather than disaster - in a certain sense they are not <em>really</em> sub-optimal at all;</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">* Why would I have John do a crazy or suboptimal thing if I know this is likely to lead to me "losing" the game (eg by having John die)?</p><p></p><p>D&D has always solved this problem, at least as far as physical combat is concerned, via hit points. I like a system that is able to extend a solution into other parts of the game. And for my personal purposes "the GM decides" is not a solution.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't understand why you say that the GM has absolute power in a practical sense. The rules constrain the GM's power the same as they do anyone else's - for instance, the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster, the GM has to knock off those hit points.</p><p></p><p>The rules of an RPG <em>might</em> say that the GM can feel free whether or not to have regard to the players' dice rolls in adjudicating the consequences of PC actions but they don't have to, and I very strongly prefer a game that does <em>not</em> say that.</p><p></p><p>I personally prefer a game where the GM has strong authority over scene-framing but that is not essential to RPGing. And Marvel Heroic RP has an interesting device - the Doom Pool - which does not limit the way in which a GM can frame a scene but does constrain the extent to which the GM can escalate it (eg via reinforcements) as it unfolds.</p><p></p><p>Of course the GM can just ignore the rules and cheat, but then so can the players. That doesn't tell us about what limits on authority it is practical for the rules of an RPG to impose.</p><p></p><p>On the bigger question, as I posted earlier, the only RPG I am interested in playing in accordance with the concpetion of GM that you describe is CoC.</p><p></p><p>Your description of the GM's role also tends, in my mind, to reinforce my sense that by "imaginative experience of the PC" you mean something like "forming a mental image of the events in the game fiction that are occurring to and surrounding my PC" as opposed to "emotionally inhabiting my PC and working his/her will on the world via the resources I have at my disposal." The latter approach to RPGing - which again is my strong preference, CoC excepted - more-or-less requires that the system give the players <em>some</em> resources whereby they can produce outcomes on the fiction that are binding on all other participants, including the GM.</p><p></p><p>4e is a particularly rules heavy way to do this, of course. And there are things to be said - both from the "objective" viewpoint of design and the "subjective" viewpoint of personal taste - about the merits of rules heavy vs rules light systems. But I think there is no direct pathway from these things to a particular conception of either imagination in RPGs, or the role of the GM.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Balesir's remark certainly captrues, for me, some of the reasons I don't like "unlimited authority" GMing. As a player, if I want to read a story or watch a film I'll do that. As a GM if I want to write a story or a screenplay I'll do that. When I'm RPGing I want to do what is distinctively pleasurable, to me, about RPGing - namely, frame scenes in which my players' PCs are engaged and then see what the players do. In order for me to genuinely "see what the players do" they have to be able to do things independently of my will. This is what player resources are for. Even p 42 involves player resources - skill bonuses, healing surges etc. Once I tell a player the DC and the outcome on success or failure, they get to roll the die and I'm as bound by that outcome as the players are.</p><p></p><p>As for "4e is a pre-furnished apartment" I don't really have a strong grasp on the analogy: "furnishings" seem like world-building, but (i) 4e has a very light emphasis on world-building compared to traditional D&D, and (ii) worldbuilding may be creative for the GM but is nothing but a source of limitation for the players.</p><p></p><p>To the extent that I have some grasp on your analogy - that what is "pre-furnished" is the range of options that players can take for their PCs - then I don't think I agree. Here's one example that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] often gives: how often in classic D&D did a battle captain PC lead an attack while making a rousing cry to his companions, brining it about that not only does the battle captain get to attack the enemy, but so do all his/her companions? This is an utter staple from the more romantic end of the fantasy genre (Excalibur again) but is possible only in 4e.</p><p></p><p>Multiple times you have suggested that I am misconstruing the significance of your reference to Excalibur, but I think you may not have fully appreciated the point I was making: that there is a fundamental contradiction between (i) the claim that 4e is in some way limited or "pre-furnished" compared to classic D&D, and (ii) the fact that for a whole range of utterly staple genre elements of fantasy literature, from the battle captain to the heroic comeback to the warrior who imposes his/her will on the mooks as they swarm him or her, only 4e can deliver them - and furthermore does so primarily at the behest of the players without needing to detour via the will of the GM.</p><p></p><p>For me, that is a game that is serving, not subordinating, the end of imagination.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6228221, member: 42582"] A related problem is this: [indent]* Both in real life and in adventure fiction, people do all sorts of crazy, suboptimal things; * While in real life this sort of stuff can get you hurt, in adventure fiction those crazy and sub-optimal things tend to lead to success, or at least excitement, rather than disaster - in a certain sense they are not [I]really[/I] sub-optimal at all; * Why would I have John do a crazy or suboptimal thing if I know this is likely to lead to me "losing" the game (eg by having John die)?[/indent] D&D has always solved this problem, at least as far as physical combat is concerned, via hit points. I like a system that is able to extend a solution into other parts of the game. And for my personal purposes "the GM decides" is not a solution. I don't understand why you say that the GM has absolute power in a practical sense. The rules constrain the GM's power the same as they do anyone else's - for instance, the rules can state that if a player rolls a hit and does damage to the GM's monster, the GM has to knock off those hit points. The rules of an RPG [I]might[/I] say that the GM can feel free whether or not to have regard to the players' dice rolls in adjudicating the consequences of PC actions but they don't have to, and I very strongly prefer a game that does [I]not[/I] say that. I personally prefer a game where the GM has strong authority over scene-framing but that is not essential to RPGing. And Marvel Heroic RP has an interesting device - the Doom Pool - which does not limit the way in which a GM can frame a scene but does constrain the extent to which the GM can escalate it (eg via reinforcements) as it unfolds. Of course the GM can just ignore the rules and cheat, but then so can the players. That doesn't tell us about what limits on authority it is practical for the rules of an RPG to impose. On the bigger question, as I posted earlier, the only RPG I am interested in playing in accordance with the concpetion of GM that you describe is CoC. Your description of the GM's role also tends, in my mind, to reinforce my sense that by "imaginative experience of the PC" you mean something like "forming a mental image of the events in the game fiction that are occurring to and surrounding my PC" as opposed to "emotionally inhabiting my PC and working his/her will on the world via the resources I have at my disposal." The latter approach to RPGing - which again is my strong preference, CoC excepted - more-or-less requires that the system give the players [I]some[/I] resources whereby they can produce outcomes on the fiction that are binding on all other participants, including the GM. 4e is a particularly rules heavy way to do this, of course. And there are things to be said - both from the "objective" viewpoint of design and the "subjective" viewpoint of personal taste - about the merits of rules heavy vs rules light systems. But I think there is no direct pathway from these things to a particular conception of either imagination in RPGs, or the role of the GM. Balesir's remark certainly captrues, for me, some of the reasons I don't like "unlimited authority" GMing. As a player, if I want to read a story or watch a film I'll do that. As a GM if I want to write a story or a screenplay I'll do that. When I'm RPGing I want to do what is distinctively pleasurable, to me, about RPGing - namely, frame scenes in which my players' PCs are engaged and then see what the players do. In order for me to genuinely "see what the players do" they have to be able to do things independently of my will. This is what player resources are for. Even p 42 involves player resources - skill bonuses, healing surges etc. Once I tell a player the DC and the outcome on success or failure, they get to roll the die and I'm as bound by that outcome as the players are. As for "4e is a pre-furnished apartment" I don't really have a strong grasp on the analogy: "furnishings" seem like world-building, but (i) 4e has a very light emphasis on world-building compared to traditional D&D, and (ii) worldbuilding may be creative for the GM but is nothing but a source of limitation for the players. To the extent that I have some grasp on your analogy - that what is "pre-furnished" is the range of options that players can take for their PCs - then I don't think I agree. Here's one example that [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] often gives: how often in classic D&D did a battle captain PC lead an attack while making a rousing cry to his companions, brining it about that not only does the battle captain get to attack the enemy, but so do all his/her companions? This is an utter staple from the more romantic end of the fantasy genre (Excalibur again) but is possible only in 4e. Multiple times you have suggested that I am misconstruing the significance of your reference to Excalibur, but I think you may not have fully appreciated the point I was making: that there is a fundamental contradiction between (i) the claim that 4e is in some way limited or "pre-furnished" compared to classic D&D, and (ii) the fact that for a whole range of utterly staple genre elements of fantasy literature, from the battle captain to the heroic comeback to the warrior who imposes his/her will on the mooks as they swarm him or her, only 4e can deliver them - and furthermore does so primarily at the behest of the players without needing to detour via the will of the GM. For me, that is a game that is serving, not subordinating, the end of imagination. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Beyond Old and New School - "The Secret That Was Lost"
Top