Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
"HF" vs. "S&S" gaming: the underlying reason of conflict and change in D&D
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="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4821203" data-attributes="member: 80487"><p>In that L5R example and similar cases, the question that seems obvious to me is <em>why is the dishonesty necessary?</em></p><p></p><p>A simple rule could be agreed upon: A PC cannot die without the player's consent, nor an NPC without the GM's. The reciprocity is not necessary, but I like it. The point is simply for everyone to agree on the game being played. It's not necessary to lie about abiding by the rules!</p><p></p><p>If we are not willing to accept the outcomes of algorithms, then why pile them up into a complex structure? Why not turn instead to rules directed at producing the range of results we <em>do</em> want? D&D was originally designed to produce results that can easily overturn any preconceived story. The companions who are "supposed" to end up slaying the Dark Lord can instead fall in a fight with his lowly minions in the first chapter!</p><p></p><p>The more specific rules get "fudged", the less they really are rules. It's a slippery slope from playing a game to sitting down for the GM's story hour. When I go to watch a movie, I don't expect footage of the director rolling dice before each scene. That would be just a distraction from the story. Likewise, I don't want to spend hours making irrelevant decisions and dice rolls in an illusion of a game. If it's billed as a game, then I want to play for real.</p><p></p><p>This is quite another matter from the old-style referee's adjudication. When I DM OD&D, I toss dice in plain sight of the players in every case except when it really would give information they should not have -- but then it remains information for <em>me</em> nonetheless. I don't save <em>any</em> figure arbitrarily, because then its demise would also be by my choice (as I chose not to "fudge" that one time). When I make a ruling, there is likewise no need to keep the reasoning secret other than that the players have not yet discovered the reason for themselves. Barring that, we often consider situations together and come to a consensus on how to treat them. Reasonable people can disagree -- but we can also agree to an extent that might surprise some of the rules-lawyer persuasion.</p><p></p><p>It is quite possible to have a story game in which the final outcome is not in doubt, in the minds of <em>any</em> of the participants. The meaningful questions to be answered then have to do with the particular route between the story's beginning and end. What happens along the way? Surely there is a field of more and less desirable collateral results, and the game's challenge lies in finding a better rather than worse path through that.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4821203, member: 80487"] In that L5R example and similar cases, the question that seems obvious to me is [I]why is the dishonesty necessary?[/I] A simple rule could be agreed upon: A PC cannot die without the player's consent, nor an NPC without the GM's. The reciprocity is not necessary, but I like it. The point is simply for everyone to agree on the game being played. It's not necessary to lie about abiding by the rules! If we are not willing to accept the outcomes of algorithms, then why pile them up into a complex structure? Why not turn instead to rules directed at producing the range of results we [I]do[/I] want? D&D was originally designed to produce results that can easily overturn any preconceived story. The companions who are "supposed" to end up slaying the Dark Lord can instead fall in a fight with his lowly minions in the first chapter! The more specific rules get "fudged", the less they really are rules. It's a slippery slope from playing a game to sitting down for the GM's story hour. When I go to watch a movie, I don't expect footage of the director rolling dice before each scene. That would be just a distraction from the story. Likewise, I don't want to spend hours making irrelevant decisions and dice rolls in an illusion of a game. If it's billed as a game, then I want to play for real. This is quite another matter from the old-style referee's adjudication. When I DM OD&D, I toss dice in plain sight of the players in every case except when it really would give information they should not have -- but then it remains information for [I]me[/I] nonetheless. I don't save [I]any[/I] figure arbitrarily, because then its demise would also be by my choice (as I chose not to "fudge" that one time). When I make a ruling, there is likewise no need to keep the reasoning secret other than that the players have not yet discovered the reason for themselves. Barring that, we often consider situations together and come to a consensus on how to treat them. Reasonable people can disagree -- but we can also agree to an extent that might surprise some of the rules-lawyer persuasion. It is quite possible to have a story game in which the final outcome is not in doubt, in the minds of [I]any[/I] of the participants. The meaningful questions to be answered then have to do with the particular route between the story's beginning and end. What happens along the way? Surely there is a field of more and less desirable collateral results, and the game's challenge lies in finding a better rather than worse path through that. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
"HF" vs. "S&S" gaming: the underlying reason of conflict and change in D&D
Top