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
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
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: 7805079" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Your reference to "imperfect information" occupies the same (analytical) space as Luke Crane's comparison to Telephone + Pictionary.</p><p></p><p>I know that you prefer Moldvay to Gygax from the point of view of GMing advice and methods. But I think Gygax's advice to <em>players</em> in the "Successful Adventuring" section of his PHB very much captures the feel of the sort of play you are describing here, including the need to plan in a context of imperfect information.</p><p></p><p>This brings back memories of my old days of RM GMing - though that was a bit incoherent, as we were mostly aiming for stakes/drama-type play but were carrying a legacy of Gygax/Moldvay techniques. I would wander off to get a snack or chat to someone else at the club or whatever while the players would do their plotting and planning.</p><p></p><p>Having said that, this phenomenon is not confined to the distant past. 4e combat in particular also has elements of what you describe about neutral GM adjudication in the fact of player action declarations. From time-to-time we would have to finish a 4e session mid-combat (taking photos and making notes to preserve the situation for our next session). This would often be a sign of the combat taking a while to resolve, which in turn is an indicator of high stakes and high mechanical and tactical challenge. And I know that the players would have discussions that cut me out of the email loop in order to plan for how, in the next session, they would activate and optimse their resources to try to sntach victory from the seeming jaws of defeat.</p><p></p><p>What I found interesting about 4e combat - and I don't know how much 5e repicates it - is that at the "strategic" level it favours non-neutral active GMing, whereas at the tactical/resolution level it favours neutral adjudicative GMing. Here's an actual play example that (I think) illustrates this point a bit:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>In the past when I've referred to this episode of play other posters have characterised it as an unfair "gotcha". But in the 4e context I don't think that's right - <em>scene framing </em>in 4e, which in combat contexts includes selecting/introducing opponents, tends to suck when it's neutral whereas can really sing when it follows from active GMing that follows player leads/cues and pours on the pressure in response.</p><p></p><p>What <em>would</em> (by default, at least) be unfair in the context of 4e combat would be a monster ability that is not amenable to monster knowledge checks (thus depriving players of tactical information) or a power whose effect is very arbitrary relative to the level/tier of play (eg a 1st level creature with dominate (save ends) as an ability).</p><p></p><p>I find that division of GMing "layers" an interesting feature of 4e. As I said, I don't know how much it figures in 5e. The design of monsters seems in many cases to be less intricate, which might make the boundary between <em>being in the scene </em>and <em>acting or being the target of action in the scene</em> less crisp than it is in 4e.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7805079, member: 42582"] Your reference to "imperfect information" occupies the same (analytical) space as Luke Crane's comparison to Telephone + Pictionary. I know that you prefer Moldvay to Gygax from the point of view of GMing advice and methods. But I think Gygax's advice to [I]players[/I] in the "Successful Adventuring" section of his PHB very much captures the feel of the sort of play you are describing here, including the need to plan in a context of imperfect information. This brings back memories of my old days of RM GMing - though that was a bit incoherent, as we were mostly aiming for stakes/drama-type play but were carrying a legacy of Gygax/Moldvay techniques. I would wander off to get a snack or chat to someone else at the club or whatever while the players would do their plotting and planning. Having said that, this phenomenon is not confined to the distant past. 4e combat in particular also has elements of what you describe about neutral GM adjudication in the fact of player action declarations. From time-to-time we would have to finish a 4e session mid-combat (taking photos and making notes to preserve the situation for our next session). This would often be a sign of the combat taking a while to resolve, which in turn is an indicator of high stakes and high mechanical and tactical challenge. And I know that the players would have discussions that cut me out of the email loop in order to plan for how, in the next session, they would activate and optimse their resources to try to sntach victory from the seeming jaws of defeat. What I found interesting about 4e combat - and I don't know how much 5e repicates it - is that at the "strategic" level it favours non-neutral active GMing, whereas at the tactical/resolution level it favours neutral adjudicative GMing. Here's an actual play example that (I think) illustrates this point a bit: [indent] [/indent] In the past when I've referred to this episode of play other posters have characterised it as an unfair "gotcha". But in the 4e context I don't think that's right - [I]scene framing [/I]in 4e, which in combat contexts includes selecting/introducing opponents, tends to suck when it's neutral whereas can really sing when it follows from active GMing that follows player leads/cues and pours on the pressure in response. What [I]would[/I] (by default, at least) be unfair in the context of 4e combat would be a monster ability that is not amenable to monster knowledge checks (thus depriving players of tactical information) or a power whose effect is very arbitrary relative to the level/tier of play (eg a 1st level creature with dominate (save ends) as an ability). I find that division of GMing "layers" an interesting feature of 4e. As I said, I don't know how much it figures in 5e. The design of monsters seems in many cases to be less intricate, which might make the boundary between [I]being in the scene [/I]and [I]acting or being the target of action in the scene[/I] less crisp than it is in 4e. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Consequences of Failure
Top