Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6398752" data-attributes="member: 42582">4e was widely criticised - whether fairly or not - for saying that "there is just one way to play guitar" (the paraphrased quote is from Mearls, though I don't have the link).I am assumin that 5e is not going to do the same thing.Therefore it is necessary for the DMG to admit, upfront, that there are different approaches to RPGing, and that the scope of variation is greater than "do or don't we use minis+grid for combat".Therefore, the fact that you don't like a particular style can't be a reason for the DMG not to mention it as a possibility. And the discussion of the different styles has to be neutral in itself.That means that there has to be a clear discussion of the use of GM-authored secret backstory used to govern adjudication. Pros (eg it gives a sense of "being there", or exploring a "reality", etc) and cons (eg it can lead to situations like the one you described, in which a player feels that the GM shafted him with secret backstory - [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] described it as the GM pulling a Kobayashi Maru).There also has to be a clear discussion of the use of "say yes or roll the dice". Pros (eg it gives the players a clear authorship role in relation to the shared fiction) and cons (eg for at least some players it reduces "immersion", the sense of really being there, etc; also, it undermines the competitive edge to play - what Gygax called "skilled" play - because the players are no longer solving a puzzle that has already been framed by the GM).The DMG (and the designers) shouldn't be lobbying for one or the other. They should be doing their best to help players of all styles make use of the game material they, as commercial publishers, are selling.Advice on any technique also need advice on how to generate the required fictional content. Because however you are playing an RPG, one of the quickest ways to dampen player enthusiasm is to refuse them the content they expect to have access to.In a Gygaxian dungeon game, this incudes stuff like "What colour is the ceiling?" or "What is in the beakers in the mage's laboratory?" The DMG is full of appendics with lists of content to help answer these sorts of questions.In a "say yes" game, the GM needs to think of neckerchiefs or horse dung or whatever else is needed to narrate a successful tracking check once it has been framed and the dice come up in the player's favour. This isn't just about GM spontaneity, either - techniques for framing checks and narrating outcomes can also be important (eg how did the player frame the PC's check? What did s/he say s/he was looking for? Can you cut straight to successful intent without having to worry too much about the details along the way eg "OK, with your 27 tracking check you find subtle trails on the cobblestones that others would miss. Following them, you arrive at the back entrance of the Green Dragon Inn. You can hear the voice of the fugitive coming loudly from inside. . . .")In a game like your Champions one, too, you need content - what if the players says that the PCs look at the security cameras? what if one of the playes has an obscure superpower you've forgotten about, say to track psychic imprints or do object reading? Not everything can be written down and anticipated ahead of time.The DMG should be discussing this sort of stuff. It's fundamental to game mastering.</blockquote>

Verification