Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bacon Bits" data-source="post: 7293204" data-attributes="member: 6777737">In my experience it's where all this thinking about the action economy seems to lead.&nbsp; Perhaps metagaming isn't quite the right term.&nbsp; Perhaps &quot;extreme gamist thinking&quot; is more accurate.&nbsp; It's thinking about D&amp;D only as though it were a game instead of thinking about D&amp;D as a narrative adventure about your character.&nbsp; You do it too often, and players seem to go down the rabbit hole of pure mechanical play where all you ever consider is the mechanics.&nbsp; While there's nothing wrong with that style of play, it's really not the stated intent of the system.&nbsp; The more rules you add that make players think about the game mechanics during play, the more you pull them out of their characters' heads and into the rulebook.&nbsp; Again, in and of itself that isn't wrong, but it can't discourage players from trying new things.This is why you see new players to D&amp;D trying things like pushing over statues, doing flashy demonstrations to intimidate or awe, or copying what they saw in a movie, while experienced players just want to roll initiative and say, &quot;I attack and hit for 12 damage.&quot;&nbsp; Experienced players fall into the trap where they see the rules as a box that they have to live inside.&nbsp; I don't want them to do that.&nbsp; I want them to try weird things that I didn't think of.&nbsp; I don't want to feel like I'm running the script of a video game where the only options are A, B, and C because that's what the adventure author said were the options and everything else is blocked by invisible walls (plot or otherwise).&nbsp; The more I can inject narrative thinking into my players minds and not require them to think mechanically, the better the overall game experience.&nbsp; Yes, it's rewarding to kill the leader of the frost giants and take his stuff.&nbsp; It's more rewarding to get invested in the story about the local populations that have been terrorized by the frost giants, and to learn why they've been so aggressive and hostile, and to try to find a solution other than just killing everything and taking all the loot which is likely to just escalate the problem.And, no, I don't particularly like GNS theory or the Threefold model.&nbsp; I much prefer <a href="http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html" target="_blank">this model</a>, and in my experience the players at my table stray off into &quot;Powergamer&quot; or &quot;Thinker&quot; even though they all want me or the even more Storyteller DM to run compared to the DMs that are strongly combat focused.&nbsp; I want my game to be centrist or capable of visiting each sector because I think that's where the game truly shines; it's where the different sections can compliment each other.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bacon Bits, post: 7293204, member: 6777737"] In my experience it's where all this thinking about the action economy seems to lead. Perhaps metagaming isn't quite the right term. Perhaps "extreme gamist thinking" is more accurate. It's thinking about D&D only as though it were a game instead of thinking about D&D as a narrative adventure about your character. You do it too often, and players seem to go down the rabbit hole of pure mechanical play where all you ever consider is the mechanics. While there's nothing wrong with that style of play, it's really not the stated intent of the system. The more rules you add that make players think about the game mechanics during play, the more you pull them out of their characters' heads and into the rulebook. Again, in and of itself that isn't [I]wrong[/I], but it can't discourage players from trying new things. This is why you see new players to D&D trying things like pushing over statues, doing flashy demonstrations to intimidate or awe, or copying what they saw in a movie, while experienced players just want to roll initiative and say, "I attack and hit for 12 damage." Experienced players fall into the trap where they see the rules as a box that they have to live inside. I don't want them to do that. I want them to try weird things that I didn't think of. I don't want to feel like I'm running the script of a video game where the only options are A, B, and C because that's what the adventure author said were the options and everything else is blocked by invisible walls (plot or otherwise). The more I can inject narrative thinking into my players minds and not require them to think mechanically, the better the overall game experience. Yes, it's rewarding to kill the leader of the frost giants and take his stuff. It's more rewarding to get invested in the story about the local populations that have been terrorized by the frost giants, and to learn why they've been so aggressive and hostile, and to try to find a solution other than just killing everything and taking all the loot which is likely to just escalate the problem. And, no, I don't particularly like GNS theory or the Threefold model. I much prefer [URL="http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/gaming/BreakdownOfRPGPlayers.html"]this model[/URL], and in my experience the players at my table stray off into "Powergamer" or "Thinker" even though they all want me or the even more Storyteller DM to run compared to the DMs that are strongly combat focused. I want my game to be centrist or capable of visiting each sector because I think that's where the game truly shines; it's where the different sections can compliment each other. [/QUOTE]

Verification