Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Design Goals (Article)
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: 5879740" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>A couple of years. I was young, but serious. But didn't play with anyone who had learned other than from the books.</p><p></p><p>(Since then, I've played a handful of times in a one-shottish, light-hearted way.)</p><p></p><p>I read quite a bit of Lewis Pulsipher (in White Dwarf) at the time, and tried to emulate that approach in my GMing - it's hardcore Gygaxian dungeoneering (if you don't know Pulsipher, think Gygax's discussion of "skilled play" in his PHB and DMG). But that never worked for me. I eventually found my stride as a GM when Oriental Adventures came out - it presented a very different approach to what the game could be about. It put heroics, myth and history more at the centre of things.</p><p></p><p>Agreed. I think it can shape the parameters for judgement, though. Whether that's worthwhile is (to some extent, at least) a matter of taste, I think.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure it's all taste, though. One thing the standardised DCs, damage etc do in 4e is set up a type of "reliable floor" that can give players the confidence to have their PCs do stuff without fear of being hosed. They don't remove the need for GM judgement, but they channel or constrain it's mechanical expression in certain ways.</p><p></p><p>This is very different from my experience of 4e. I find that 4e makes the fiction I care about matter - how the group is working together, where they are in relation to one another, dramatic entrances or retreats, etc - while making the fictional minutiae I don't care about - is the fighter attacking high or low?, is the ranger aiming for the head or the chest, etc - take care of itself. For me, powers abstract away just the right amount of the fiction, while making salient just the right part of the fiction, for my tastes.</p><p></p><p>There are three things I like about skill challenges. (And in this respect I don't think they add anything new to RPG design. I see them as a version of the generic concept of extended conflict resolution.)</p><p></p><p>(1) They establish a certain type of pacing - the scene can't resolve until either N successes or 3 failures. That works for me. It produces more interesting and unexpected happenings.</p><p></p><p>(2) By using standard DCs, they give the players a type of confidence to engage the mechanics without worrying about their PCs being hosed. They establish a type of safety net for players engaging the situation.</p><p></p><p>(3) They establish finality in scene resolution. This helps especially in social situations, I find - the players don't have to worry, for example, that they will be hosed by NPCs suddenly changing their minds from what was earlier agreed.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I'm thinking of stuff as simple as "spill some oil on the ground to enhance my forced movement effects" or "open up my flask of elemental fire to enable me to use an Arcana check to do something funky with it".</p><p></p><p>I found the "rule of the Ming vase" stuff helpful. It helped me run <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/299440-exploration-scenarios-my-experiment-last-sunday.html" target="_blank">a combat in a library</a> in my 4e game.</p><p></p><p>Gygax endorses this approach in his DMG. Which is not to say that he's right. But every time I want to defend the place of "fortune in the middle" mechanics in D&D, I point out that Gygax was doing it back in the day!</p><p></p><p>This is too focused on minutiae for me. I like combat in my games, but not at this level of detailed description. Apart from anything else, as a GM I don't know enough about it to adjudicate it.</p><p></p><p>Absolutely no need to apologise (at least as far as I'm concerned). I'd give you some more XP if I could.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5879740, member: 42582"] A couple of years. I was young, but serious. But didn't play with anyone who had learned other than from the books. (Since then, I've played a handful of times in a one-shottish, light-hearted way.) I read quite a bit of Lewis Pulsipher (in White Dwarf) at the time, and tried to emulate that approach in my GMing - it's hardcore Gygaxian dungeoneering (if you don't know Pulsipher, think Gygax's discussion of "skilled play" in his PHB and DMG). But that never worked for me. I eventually found my stride as a GM when Oriental Adventures came out - it presented a very different approach to what the game could be about. It put heroics, myth and history more at the centre of things. Agreed. I think it can shape the parameters for judgement, though. Whether that's worthwhile is (to some extent, at least) a matter of taste, I think. I'm not sure it's all taste, though. One thing the standardised DCs, damage etc do in 4e is set up a type of "reliable floor" that can give players the confidence to have their PCs do stuff without fear of being hosed. They don't remove the need for GM judgement, but they channel or constrain it's mechanical expression in certain ways. This is very different from my experience of 4e. I find that 4e makes the fiction I care about matter - how the group is working together, where they are in relation to one another, dramatic entrances or retreats, etc - while making the fictional minutiae I don't care about - is the fighter attacking high or low?, is the ranger aiming for the head or the chest, etc - take care of itself. For me, powers abstract away just the right amount of the fiction, while making salient just the right part of the fiction, for my tastes. There are three things I like about skill challenges. (And in this respect I don't think they add anything new to RPG design. I see them as a version of the generic concept of extended conflict resolution.) (1) They establish a certain type of pacing - the scene can't resolve until either N successes or 3 failures. That works for me. It produces more interesting and unexpected happenings. (2) By using standard DCs, they give the players a type of confidence to engage the mechanics without worrying about their PCs being hosed. They establish a type of safety net for players engaging the situation. (3) They establish finality in scene resolution. This helps especially in social situations, I find - the players don't have to worry, for example, that they will be hosed by NPCs suddenly changing their minds from what was earlier agreed. I'm thinking of stuff as simple as "spill some oil on the ground to enhance my forced movement effects" or "open up my flask of elemental fire to enable me to use an Arcana check to do something funky with it". I found the "rule of the Ming vase" stuff helpful. It helped me run [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/299440-exploration-scenarios-my-experiment-last-sunday.html]a combat in a library[/url] in my 4e game. Gygax endorses this approach in his DMG. Which is not to say that he's right. But every time I want to defend the place of "fortune in the middle" mechanics in D&D, I point out that Gygax was doing it back in the day! This is too focused on minutiae for me. I like combat in my games, but not at this level of detailed description. Apart from anything else, as a GM I don't know enough about it to adjudicate it. Absolutely no need to apologise (at least as far as I'm concerned). I'd give you some more XP if I could. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
D&D Next Design Goals (Article)
Top