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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6320991" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I think with that statement, Mike is tripping over one of the 4e statements that got the edition into some trouble from the word "go" by certain segments of the D&D populace; "Skip the guards (!)" and "get to the fun!"What that statement is really trying to say are a pair of GMing principles (hat tip Vincent Baker) that I adhere to stridently and, as much as anything else, the fruits of every one of my table every sessions are borne of it:- Every moment, drive play towards conflict.and- Escalate, escalate, escalate!At its core, its a statement about pacing and stakes.  If you're careful and transparent with your words and intent, people will understand.  If you tell people they're playing boring/slow/uninteresting games, they're apt to get offended/jilted and tune you out (or worse).My play agenda is to spend little to no table time on events that are conflict-neutral.  What's more, I want play to move at a brisk pace from one conflict that my players are invested in, pretty much right to another.  I want play to basically be relentless in its excitement and emotional quantity.  I probably want a proportion (bare minimum) of 5:1 action scenes:transition scenes.That playstyle is not for everyone.  At all.  Some folks want not just a slower pace, but a considerably slower pace.  What is interesting is how system architecture supports or works against each agenda.  My agenda requires a system which is predicated upon individual scenes, their resolution, and then a soft or hard transition to another scene.  As such, conflict resolution mechanics (including resource scheduling with that framework and pacing in mind) are a necessity.  Conversely, task resolution (and resource scheduling on an adventure or work day basis) works against it in several ways (puts the PC and GM at tension with respect to pacing, makes clear and contained thematic stake-setting difficult, challenge balance predictability can run - possibly wildly - askew).  Of course, the opposite is true as well.  Conflict resolution mechanics (and resource scheduling predicated upon them) are anathema to several groups who are trying to simulate and explore an open world sandbox, replete with serial time accounting and considerable play-time spent on conflict-neutral tasks (haggling merchants, getting drunk in taverns, chatting up random NPCs to try to load up on "side quests" or to potentially make contacts, crafting) so they can feel like they're experiencing a living, breathing, world.I'm not sure that is exactly accurate.  3.x was enormously rules-fiddly with dozens of interactions and sub-systems.  Unbelievably so.  Further, There is a decent chunk of fiddliness in AD&D when it comes to the GM's job in tracking initiative segments and in world exploration.  Then there was making rulings when the various subsystems were incoherent with one another or outright silent.  4e was an extremely lean chassis that I can GM with virtually nothing in front of me and nary having to look up a thing.  Its no Dungeon World, but I literally just need the math of the current level and my GMing principles and I can run it without a single rulebook.  Most mental overhead in 4e is in keeping track of all of the conditions that are flying around when you have a large group of PCs (thankfully I never experienced that!).As to how much excess (meaning stuff that I'd rather not spend any table time on whatsoever) mental overhead will be required of GMs in 5e, when adjudicating the system's blind spots, I'm not entirely sure.   The last iteration of the playtest had some pretty sound, coherent exploration rules but I wonder how well it will play with the disparate suite of resources for the classes (both in terms of breadth and in terms of scheduling).  The Background system should help with that, but how much remains to be seen (especially as the levels pile on and fiat by spellcasting runs roughshod over a PC constrained by the task resolution system).  I've said it before, but my sense is that 5e will likely end up playing best as "the AD&D 2.5 that everyone who disliked 3.x wished would have come about."</blockquote>

Verification