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
Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb
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: 6326650" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I don't dissent from any of this.</p><p></p><p>I don't necessarily agree with [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] on this, or on other things - and Libramarian often doesn't agree with me - but I like Libramarian's frank characterisations of classic D&D play.</p><p></p><p>I also suspect that Libramarian doesn't play at name level, thereby avoiding some of the issues with high-level mages.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is what I was trying to get at in my comments under the quote from Libramarian: I think that "modern" games, including 4e, give the GM different techniques for putting pressure on the players. Because players have reliable mechanical resources not just for engaging the gameworld, but for tackling conflicts in the gameworld, the GM can frame and then push those conflicts without being "adversarial" in the traditional sense.</p><p></p><p>I think this is definitely true for 4e. But my sense from the Libramarian comment I posted upthread, plus [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] in this thread, is that there is an approach to classic D&D which denies it. In this approach, the "storytelling" unfolds by free roleplaying, and the dice only come out if the free roleplaying has broken down. (At least on the player side. The GM might be using dice to determine reactions, roll wandering monsters, etc.)</p><p></p><p>I've never played in this other (non-maths) style, even though I started playing in 1982, because it emphasises exploration over conflict whereas I've always been more interested in conflict than exploration. Eg the idea that is "good play" to avoid fights doesn't work for me, because I tend to find that style boring at the table.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I am not very interested in exploration, and not at all interested in searchind wardrobes. Wake me up when the game restarts! The sort of gameworld fiction I find interesting is the passions, politics, alliances, mythic history etc that underlies and explains the NPCs and gods of the setting.</p><p></p><p>But even then, for me the main goal of play isn't for the players (via their PCs) just to learn this stuff. The goal is for the players to engage with it and change it. Which requires resolution mechanics.</p><p></p><p>The idea that engaging the mechanics doesn't involve interacting with the setting is foreign to me, for just the reason that [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] gives in the post of his I quoted above.</p><p></p><p>The "modern" style of RPGing that underpins 4e (at least as played by those who see its affinities to even more modern games like HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP, Dungeon World etc) doesn't distinguish these two things. Part of the skill of being a player is to leverage the ingame situation so as to bring your mechanical resources to bear upon it.</p><p></p><p>For instance, if your PC is good at Intimidation but not Diplomacy then part of the skill of playing is learning how to take advantage of angry, scared PCs rather than friendly ones. (And also knowing when it is sensible to use your weaker skill because you <em>need</em> the NPC in question to be friendly.)</p><p></p><p>Maybe we have different criteria for what counts as clever thinking. I can't speak for 3E, which I've not played very much, but I find 4e does reward clever thinking. In skill challenges, players need to find clever ways to bring their skills to bear upon the fictional situation. In a combat, players need to find clever ways to synergise the PCs' range of abilities.</p><p></p><p>Also, the relative universality of the resolution mechanics (via skill challenges and p 42) means that there is no pressure on the GM to block clever ideas because there is no mechanical way to give effect to them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6326650, member: 42582"] I don't dissent from any of this. I don't necessarily agree with [MENTION=6688858]Libramarian[/MENTION] on this, or on other things - and Libramarian often doesn't agree with me - but I like Libramarian's frank characterisations of classic D&D play. I also suspect that Libramarian doesn't play at name level, thereby avoiding some of the issues with high-level mages. This is what I was trying to get at in my comments under the quote from Libramarian: I think that "modern" games, including 4e, give the GM different techniques for putting pressure on the players. Because players have reliable mechanical resources not just for engaging the gameworld, but for tackling conflicts in the gameworld, the GM can frame and then push those conflicts without being "adversarial" in the traditional sense. I think this is definitely true for 4e. But my sense from the Libramarian comment I posted upthread, plus [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] in this thread, is that there is an approach to classic D&D which denies it. In this approach, the "storytelling" unfolds by free roleplaying, and the dice only come out if the free roleplaying has broken down. (At least on the player side. The GM might be using dice to determine reactions, roll wandering monsters, etc.) I've never played in this other (non-maths) style, even though I started playing in 1982, because it emphasises exploration over conflict whereas I've always been more interested in conflict than exploration. Eg the idea that is "good play" to avoid fights doesn't work for me, because I tend to find that style boring at the table. I am not very interested in exploration, and not at all interested in searchind wardrobes. Wake me up when the game restarts! The sort of gameworld fiction I find interesting is the passions, politics, alliances, mythic history etc that underlies and explains the NPCs and gods of the setting. But even then, for me the main goal of play isn't for the players (via their PCs) just to learn this stuff. The goal is for the players to engage with it and change it. Which requires resolution mechanics. The idea that engaging the mechanics doesn't involve interacting with the setting is foreign to me, for just the reason that [MENTION=11821]Obryn[/MENTION] gives in the post of his I quoted above. The "modern" style of RPGing that underpins 4e (at least as played by those who see its affinities to even more modern games like HeroWars/Quest, Marvel Heroic RP, Dungeon World etc) doesn't distinguish these two things. Part of the skill of being a player is to leverage the ingame situation so as to bring your mechanical resources to bear upon it. For instance, if your PC is good at Intimidation but not Diplomacy then part of the skill of playing is learning how to take advantage of angry, scared PCs rather than friendly ones. (And also knowing when it is sensible to use your weaker skill because you [I]need[/I] the NPC in question to be friendly.) Maybe we have different criteria for what counts as clever thinking. I can't speak for 3E, which I've not played very much, but I find 4e does reward clever thinking. In skill challenges, players need to find clever ways to bring their skills to bear upon the fictional situation. In a combat, players need to find clever ways to synergise the PCs' range of abilities. Also, the relative universality of the resolution mechanics (via skill challenges and p 42) means that there is no pressure on the GM to block clever ideas because there is no mechanical way to give effect to them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Blog Post by Robert J. Schwalb
Top