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
Character play vs Player play
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="Mark CMG" data-source="post: 6447331" data-attributes="member: 10479"><p>It's been pointed out how these are errors in interpretation, how the player "calls" for a warhorse through the PC (thus not player authorship), how the idea of sandboxes is for there to be sites all over that any PCs might find, that fudging a dice roll is an exception to the standard, etc. That you also keep pointing toward stuff written half a decade after the rules were originally written does seem dismissive of the first 12% or the whole of D&D's run thus far.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>You also keep ignoring the difference between the OP and the side discussion I keep pointing out which is the difference between player knowledge and player authorship, as well as conflating a GM setting up a game world with the idea of tailoring encounters for player character level.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And as pointed out before, advice on how to get started to keep ahead of the players while fleshing out a sandbox campaign setting is not indicative of tailoring to players. The assumptions you make beyond that misinterpretation build on that faulty premise. Again, adding to the a setting to ensure there is plenty for players to do should not be conflated with tailoring encounters to PC level.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And that's the strawman you spend hundreds of post-words building up to use as a refutation of something you keep saying you don't understand despite me explaining and you ignoring the explanations.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Interesting assertion but based on your other posts you implement it differently from standard early sandbox gameplay. To understand, just look at my previous post defining how to build challenges in a sandbox and how players, through their PCs, determine which ones to tackle based on in-game clues.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>No, that's not the point. The point is, if the player wants to know if there are crates, he asks the GM if his PC sees any crates. The player interacts with the environment through roleplay in a roleplaying game, by suggesting that his PC is looking around and the GM describes some of what he sees in whatever level of detail seems suitable. If the PC is looking for something specific, like crates or something to climb up, he asks if his PC sees any crates.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The conceit is clear by using the expression "wandering" monsters. It's an abstraction for simplification of setting design. I know you understand this by the hoop-jumping you are doing to dismiss the intent.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>He is giving some advice that is very specific in hopes that the level of detail can give some ideas on how to create some verisimilitude in-game when out of game hindrances to it might be troublesome.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Again, this is done through the character, and that is part of roleplaying. A dwarf might have a sense and cleric might have a spell, etc. If the PC isn't in possession of a way to figure it out with a check or a spell, the PCs can explore until they put it together. It's not a lottery, it's the nature of the game that players explore a setting through their PCs, they play a role as part of the game. I'm guessing you are already thinking of a particular example of PCs roaming around for three real-world months with frustrated players that you could post as a way to show this to somehow be un-fun in your eyes. Please don't. Our particular examples or opinions on what might or might not be fun don't enter into an objective examination of that early style of play. For instance, quotes like the following aren't objectively useful.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Let's not get into opinions about what we consider fun versus what we don't as a way to label design as good or bad. It's akin to the previous exchange from the other day when you point out what you term "real problems" which not everyone considers problems at all. Again, it's not productive to an objective examination of the development of (trad) RPGs, RPGs with storytelling elements, and full-fledged storytelling games.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Mark CMG, post: 6447331, member: 10479"] It's been pointed out how these are errors in interpretation, how the player "calls" for a warhorse through the PC (thus not player authorship), how the idea of sandboxes is for there to be sites all over that any PCs might find, that fudging a dice roll is an exception to the standard, etc. That you also keep pointing toward stuff written half a decade after the rules were originally written does seem dismissive of the first 12% or the whole of D&D's run thus far. You also keep ignoring the difference between the OP and the side discussion I keep pointing out which is the difference between player knowledge and player authorship, as well as conflating a GM setting up a game world with the idea of tailoring encounters for player character level. And as pointed out before, advice on how to get started to keep ahead of the players while fleshing out a sandbox campaign setting is not indicative of tailoring to players. The assumptions you make beyond that misinterpretation build on that faulty premise. Again, adding to the a setting to ensure there is plenty for players to do should not be conflated with tailoring encounters to PC level. And that's the strawman you spend hundreds of post-words building up to use as a refutation of something you keep saying you don't understand despite me explaining and you ignoring the explanations. Interesting assertion but based on your other posts you implement it differently from standard early sandbox gameplay. To understand, just look at my previous post defining how to build challenges in a sandbox and how players, through their PCs, determine which ones to tackle based on in-game clues. No, that's not the point. The point is, if the player wants to know if there are crates, he asks the GM if his PC sees any crates. The player interacts with the environment through roleplay in a roleplaying game, by suggesting that his PC is looking around and the GM describes some of what he sees in whatever level of detail seems suitable. If the PC is looking for something specific, like crates or something to climb up, he asks if his PC sees any crates. The conceit is clear by using the expression "wandering" monsters. It's an abstraction for simplification of setting design. I know you understand this by the hoop-jumping you are doing to dismiss the intent. He is giving some advice that is very specific in hopes that the level of detail can give some ideas on how to create some verisimilitude in-game when out of game hindrances to it might be troublesome. Again, this is done through the character, and that is part of roleplaying. A dwarf might have a sense and cleric might have a spell, etc. If the PC isn't in possession of a way to figure it out with a check or a spell, the PCs can explore until they put it together. It's not a lottery, it's the nature of the game that players explore a setting through their PCs, they play a role as part of the game. I'm guessing you are already thinking of a particular example of PCs roaming around for three real-world months with frustrated players that you could post as a way to show this to somehow be un-fun in your eyes. Please don't. Our particular examples or opinions on what might or might not be fun don't enter into an objective examination of that early style of play. For instance, quotes like the following aren't objectively useful. Let's not get into opinions about what we consider fun versus what we don't as a way to label design as good or bad. It's akin to the previous exchange from the other day when you point out what you term "real problems" which not everyone considers problems at all. Again, it's not productive to an objective examination of the development of (trad) RPGs, RPGs with storytelling elements, and full-fledged storytelling games. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Character play vs Player play
Top