Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jacob Lewis" data-source="post: 9777744" data-attributes="member: 6667921">Thanks for these thoughts—there’s a lot to unpack.I especially appreciate the observation about how D&D’s wargame roots create expectations that every character must be fully involved in combat. That’s exactly the structural lens my essay is exploring: turn-based systems inherently isolate players, and the problem isn’t combat itself, but how it structures engagement and agency.The other examples—systems that handle split scenes, or that rely on quick resolutions or collective dice-rolling—highlight alternative ways to keep players connected to the action without formal mechanics like reactions. My point is similar, but framed around narrative responsiveness rather than new subsystems: GMs can leverage natural openings in the scene to allow players to act, maintaining momentum and attention without rewriting rules.I don’t mean to suggest combat should be jettisoned, or that every system needs to mimic PbtA designs. Rather, it’s about seeing opportunities in the existing structure to sustain engagement across the table, and ensuring that every turn—even a “miss”—creates a responsive environment. A failed attack isn’t just a “swish”; it can signal openings for the adversary to act, demonstrate tangible consequences, and keep the narrative and mechanics in motion so no one is left idle.The challenge here is that the idea itself resists easy explanation—it doesn’t come with a clear sequence or codified instructions. People naturally want to reduce it to familiar terms or straightforward solutions, and I understand that. I present it anyway because exploring this approach is more interesting to me than taking the conventional, simpler paths. Those familiar avenues are well-trodden and well-represented; they will thrive without my input.</blockquote>

Verification