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
D&D Combat is fictionless
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="clearstream" data-source="post: 8402753" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>It sounds like we're united in desiring to emerge fiction from game, but with differing tolerances for how that works. In the past I have used '<em>everyone-declares, then everyone-acts</em>' and it felt bad (to our group) to find player declarations stymied by game state on their turn. We kept having to allow corrections. Similarly, and responsive to [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s point, I can see the justice of losing tempo with initiative, but have other motives - such as avoiding the possibly punitive feeling, 'go second <em>and </em>lose tempo' result.</p><p></p><p>I would dislike emerging our fiction on a per-turn basis if that shattered suspension of disbelief for me. My play would risk becoming '<em>fictionless'</em> because sans suspension of disbelief my fiction is disrupted. Does that then capture the essence of your concern?</p><p></p><p></p><p>A third group might choose not to over-think it. I guess you know about oddities such as that you cannot see colour at the edge of your vision. Your brain glosses over that with an impression of colour. It plays similar tricks with the timing of events. We can emerge our fiction on a per-turn basis and allow ourselves to gloss over oddities when they surface. Or to put it another way, a vast number of omissions, elisions, and quixotic events arise in RPG play. The question is not whether the rules make sense, but do they make sufficient sense for us to go along with them? I think you rightly imply with "<em>when</em>", that this isn't a binary - the rules might make sufficient sense most of the time. Meaning that the cost of patching over the cases where they don't isn't worth paying unless those cases are common and (to you) egregious.</p><p></p><p>For <em>reasons</em>, that fighter couldn't get to the door before the orcs. There isn't anything objectively <em>fictionless</em> about that. Yet it might not be the fiction we desire, and could jolt us out of disbelief. I can appreciate concerns like [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER]'s, which seem to essentially be saying that the rules do not make sufficient sense for him to go along with them. Assuming I have captured that correctly?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8402753, member: 71699"] It sounds like we're united in desiring to emerge fiction from game, but with differing tolerances for how that works. In the past I have used '[I]everyone-declares, then everyone-acts[/I]'[I] [/I]and it felt bad (to our group) to find player declarations stymied by game state on their turn. We kept having to allow corrections. Similarly, and responsive to [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s point, I can see the justice of losing tempo with initiative, but have other motives - such as avoiding the possibly punitive feeling, 'go second [I]and [/I]lose tempo' result. I would dislike emerging our fiction on a per-turn basis if that shattered suspension of disbelief for me. My play would risk becoming '[I]fictionless'[/I] because sans suspension of disbelief my fiction is disrupted. Does that then capture the essence of your concern? A third group might choose not to over-think it. I guess you know about oddities such as that you cannot see colour at the edge of your vision. Your brain glosses over that with an impression of colour. It plays similar tricks with the timing of events. We can emerge our fiction on a per-turn basis and allow ourselves to gloss over oddities when they surface. Or to put it another way, a vast number of omissions, elisions, and quixotic events arise in RPG play. The question is not whether the rules make sense, but do they make sufficient sense for us to go along with them? I think you rightly imply with "[I]when[/I]", that this isn't a binary - the rules might make sufficient sense most of the time. Meaning that the cost of patching over the cases where they don't isn't worth paying unless those cases are common and (to you) egregious. For [I]reasons[/I], that fighter couldn't get to the door before the orcs. There isn't anything objectively [I]fictionless[/I] about that. Yet it might not be the fiction we desire, and could jolt us out of disbelief. I can appreciate concerns like [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER]'s, which seem to essentially be saying that the rules do not make sufficient sense for him to go along with them. Assuming I have captured that correctly? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Combat is fictionless
Top