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
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Discuss: Combat as War in D&D
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8265383" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>I think you are running into basically the same problem I did when I asked my question about a goblin tribe. The model [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] has built doesn't have any specific logical boundaries or rules which are absolute, there is simply a set of indicative attributes. That isn't meant as a strong criticism of the idea either, but he doesn't seem to want to poke at the edges of that. </p><p></p><p>So, my feeling is that ALL GM actions are going to benefit someone. They will either make the PCs position stronger or weaker, it is inevitable. Even inaction or rulings that are relatively neutral in general still have some sort of effect on the game, or are too trivial to worry about. </p><p></p><p>This is why I only ever couch my own analysis and propositions in terms of what the goals and actions of the participants in the GAME are. Here we can make much more clear distinctions and definitions. The idea of a game is to have fun (be entertained, etc., take it loosely). So then we can start to ask questions like "Is it better (more fun) for the GM to always give the PCs what they want?" We can see that this is not always the case, and ideas like the Czege Principal arise, and the GM agenda of Dungeon World where the 'job' of the GM is to throw more problems at the PCs, constantly! Yet the GM is a 'fan of' those same PCs. This all works consistently.</p><p></p><p>In that kind of context there are definitely 'styles' or 'tone' or whatever you want to call it, even within a single overall genre. In this kind of way of analyzing it, a 'CaW' concept is simply a tool, a type of fictional approach that gives the players a chance to express tactical/strategic thinking in the RP in a certain style. Maybe some of the RP tactics strike the participants as 'making sense within the fiction', but they don't even really have to be plausible, though I think classically CaW would tend to hold that they mostly are, and a game where all the tactics are truly fantastical and unlikely would come across as something else (I'm not sure there is a term for it, as I have never seen a game play that way).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8265383, member: 82106"] I think you are running into basically the same problem I did when I asked my question about a goblin tribe. The model [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] has built doesn't have any specific logical boundaries or rules which are absolute, there is simply a set of indicative attributes. That isn't meant as a strong criticism of the idea either, but he doesn't seem to want to poke at the edges of that. So, my feeling is that ALL GM actions are going to benefit someone. They will either make the PCs position stronger or weaker, it is inevitable. Even inaction or rulings that are relatively neutral in general still have some sort of effect on the game, or are too trivial to worry about. This is why I only ever couch my own analysis and propositions in terms of what the goals and actions of the participants in the GAME are. Here we can make much more clear distinctions and definitions. The idea of a game is to have fun (be entertained, etc., take it loosely). So then we can start to ask questions like "Is it better (more fun) for the GM to always give the PCs what they want?" We can see that this is not always the case, and ideas like the Czege Principal arise, and the GM agenda of Dungeon World where the 'job' of the GM is to throw more problems at the PCs, constantly! Yet the GM is a 'fan of' those same PCs. This all works consistently. In that kind of context there are definitely 'styles' or 'tone' or whatever you want to call it, even within a single overall genre. In this kind of way of analyzing it, a 'CaW' concept is simply a tool, a type of fictional approach that gives the players a chance to express tactical/strategic thinking in the RP in a certain style. Maybe some of the RP tactics strike the participants as 'making sense within the fiction', but they don't even really have to be plausible, though I think classically CaW would tend to hold that they mostly are, and a game where all the tactics are truly fantastical and unlikely would come across as something else (I'm not sure there is a term for it, as I have never seen a game play that way). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Discuss: Combat as War in D&D
Top