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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nnms" data-source="post: 5927096" data-attributes="member: 83293">I'm trying to illustrate that your explanations represent a totally different approach to the game than the one those opposed to dailies and encounter powers are advocating.  This is the crux of the disagreement.People don't want to have them in their game because they want a particular mode of play where you describe what you do and then, as needed, use the system to resolve things.  This then creates a new described situation in an endless circuit of description-reaction-redescription.  It works quite well and has been around in one form or another since 1967.If I need to start adding in description after the fact to justify things, then I've left that mode of play.  The chandelier or the carpet should have been part of the description from the beginning.  It's not appropriate when everyone is making decisions based on the description to suddenly change it.People who want this sort of mode are telling you that encounter and daily powers can necessitate the type of play they don't like.  The creation of situation changing details as an after-the-fact description is exactly the type of thing that ruins the experience for people wanting this type of play.When someone wanting this type of play talks about a mechanic as dissociated, telling them they're just seeing it wrong because you can re-associate it after the fact is 100% useless and all it does is demonstrate that you don't understand their position.And if you have to change the situation retroactively to explain it, it's incompatible with a type of game where you make decisions based on the described situation.Absolutely.  In a very traditional game though, it's simply not the job of anyone to create environmental elements on the fly, but to describe the situation in advance so relevant decisions can be made about it.  You may not need to describe the rope, but at least mention the chandelier as then the people involved can infer that pre-electric chandeliers were lowered to be lit and that there is going to be a rope somewhere.No one can make decisions about the rug if they don't see it as part of the ongoing shared story.They can't see it as something they can interact with and:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">animate it with magic to wrap up the enemy</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">decide to pull on it to knock people over</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">light it on fire</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">realize it may be hiding a pit trap</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">etc</li> </ul>I am all for games where all of the participants have situation & plot authority.  Games like Fate where you can spend a meta resource and declare the carpet or the chandalier is there.  I run a GMless Fate game where everyone can make free declarations all the time.  Works great.But I don't want it in my D&D as a default that I have to excise.  It should be a modular aspect (so should the complete restoration of AEDU to 5E).  When it comes to fantasy party/troupe based gaming, I like the earliest modes of play.  The kind that gave birth to Runequest and Rolemaster and were a very common approach to OD&D.Not at all.  Unless the people playing it don't want it to emulate an action movie in terms of genre.  I'm not a big fan of the action movie aesthetic.Perfect place for modularity.It's a shame WotC didn't come out of the gate swinging with modularity.  It's what they hyped as bringing all the editions together.I'm also not surprised that Justin Alexander's statement of something being 'not role-playing' caused everyone to get up in arms about his approach.  He wasn't trying to invalidate other people's play, he was just trying to get really specific about how the act of playing an individual role and making decisions based on that is really important to a certain mode of play.</blockquote>

Verification