Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6201935" data-attributes="member: 17106">Great. I didn't realize I hadn't been clear.I wasn't playing D&amp;D in 1992, and this all derives very clearly from the 3e DMG and other books in that era. I did learn a lot about DMing from CoC d20; it's much easier to conceptualize the d20 system and how it can and should work in a modern context.I'm not saying there's no continuum. I'm saying that D&amp;D (at least the version that this thread is tagged with) is on one end of that continuum. Other games might be on intermediate portions of it, and that's fine. I am also saying there's a reason that a game with that approach is tops on the market, and that it's been around for a while (presumably before '92). It's a good approach. It works. It's fast, and it allows players to have clear roles.Personally, every time I try to experiment with shared narrative control, the players push back and want a purer roleplaying experience.I am saying that since 3e was designed this way, someone who plays 3e with a high degree of &quot;player force&quot;, and particularly by allowing players to dictate using spells, is likely to have a very different game experience than someone who runs it as intended.I also don't think that it invalidates PC builds or any other choices players make. Even if a player cannot predict or control the outcome, playing a wizard still produces a different play experience than playing a fighter, and trying to be diplomatic produces a different play experience than trying to fight. If anything, I think trying to create equivalency between choices invalidates the meaning of those choices.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6201935, member: 17106"] Great. I didn't realize I hadn't been clear. I wasn't playing D&D in 1992, and this all derives very clearly from the 3e DMG and other books in that era. I did learn a lot about DMing from CoC d20; it's much easier to conceptualize the d20 system and how it can and should work in a modern context. I'm not saying there's no continuum. I'm saying that D&D (at least the version that this thread is tagged with) is on one end of that continuum. Other games might be on intermediate portions of it, and that's fine. I am also saying there's a reason that a game with that approach is tops on the market, and that it's been around for a while (presumably before '92). It's a good approach. It works. It's fast, and it allows players to have clear roles. Personally, every time I try to experiment with shared narrative control, the players push back and want a purer roleplaying experience. I am saying that since 3e was designed this way, someone who plays 3e with a high degree of "player force", and particularly by allowing players to dictate using spells, is likely to have a very different game experience than someone who runs it as intended. I also don't think that it invalidates PC builds or any other choices players make. Even if a player cannot predict or control the outcome, playing a wizard still produces a different play experience than playing a fighter, and trying to be diplomatic produces a different play experience than trying to fight. If anything, I think trying to create equivalency between choices invalidates the meaning of those choices. [/QUOTE]

Verification