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 LIVE! 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
Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?
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="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6884172" data-attributes="member: 6775031"><p>As tends to be the case, the RPG form wasn't perfected - or even really understood - until a while after its nominal invention. The thing which Gygax called an RPG does not qualify as such by the more-rigorous standards of the late eighties, although it would certain fit into a broader category of game that also include such outliers as FATE and D&D 4E.</p><p></p><p>If you want to say that all of those games are RPGs, and actual role-playing-based games are a different subcategory within that, then that's certainly an argument that you could make, though it sidesteps the relevant point.</p><p></p><p>The important thing is that the integrity of the world comes first, and what you do with it is a secondary consideration. If there's a dragon because <em>it makes sense</em> for there to be a dragon, then that's fine; if there's a dragon because <em>it would be cool if the party fought a dragon</em>, then that's shenanigans.</p><p></p><p>I assume you're familiar with the practice of a GM asking a player, "Are you sure that's what your <em>character</em> would do?" It's probably not something that you do in your own games, but it's common advice in Palladium games, and has appeared in some media depicting the hobby. Setting aside how the question can be abused by bad GMs, the point of asking is to get players to really <em>think</em> about their characters, and to encourage them to role-play honestly (instead of being side-tracked by other concerns).</p><p></p><p>Well, the same thing can be used as a tool to help a GM better role-play their setting. Whenever there's doubt about whether to include a setting element (a friendly priest in town, a wooden crate, the Tarrasque, etc), the GM should stop and ask themself <em>"Am I sure that this thing should really be there?"</em> And if they can honestly answer yes, then it's safe to include; but if they can't honestly answer yes, then including it anyway would be a violation of their obligations to impartiality.</p><p></p><p>This is rationalization. It is a logical fallacy aimed toward disguising your true intentions (to other players, or to yourself). If your <em>real</em> reason for including an encounter is that it would be interesting for the players, then it doesn't matter how cleverly you go back and make it fit, because it already didn't <em>originate</em> from your honest presentation of the world.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6884172, member: 6775031"] As tends to be the case, the RPG form wasn't perfected - or even really understood - until a while after its nominal invention. The thing which Gygax called an RPG does not qualify as such by the more-rigorous standards of the late eighties, although it would certain fit into a broader category of game that also include such outliers as FATE and D&D 4E. If you want to say that all of those games are RPGs, and actual role-playing-based games are a different subcategory within that, then that's certainly an argument that you could make, though it sidesteps the relevant point. The important thing is that the integrity of the world comes first, and what you do with it is a secondary consideration. If there's a dragon because [I]it makes sense[/I] for there to be a dragon, then that's fine; if there's a dragon because [I]it would be cool if the party fought a dragon[/I], then that's shenanigans. I assume you're familiar with the practice of a GM asking a player, "Are you sure that's what your [I]character[/I] would do?" It's probably not something that you do in your own games, but it's common advice in Palladium games, and has appeared in some media depicting the hobby. Setting aside how the question can be abused by bad GMs, the point of asking is to get players to really [I]think[/I] about their characters, and to encourage them to role-play honestly (instead of being side-tracked by other concerns). Well, the same thing can be used as a tool to help a GM better role-play their setting. Whenever there's doubt about whether to include a setting element (a friendly priest in town, a wooden crate, the Tarrasque, etc), the GM should stop and ask themself [I]"Am I sure that this thing should really be there?"[/I] And if they can honestly answer yes, then it's safe to include; but if they can't honestly answer yes, then including it anyway would be a violation of their obligations to impartiality. This is rationalization. It is a logical fallacy aimed toward disguising your true intentions (to other players, or to yourself). If your [I]real[/I] reason for including an encounter is that it would be interesting for the players, then it doesn't matter how cleverly you go back and make it fit, because it already didn't [I]originate[/I] from your honest presentation of the world. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Do NPCs in your game have PHB classes?
Top