Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8112104" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Again though, you are supposing a sort of oppositional game play process where the players and GM's goals are at least partly in conflict with each other, such that the GM would try to 'reign in' players and part of his 'job' would be telling them they cannot do things. I don't play in that way, at all. It isn't my job to tell the players what their PCs can or cannot do. I can tell them what situation they are in, and I can present them with obstacles and resources which facilitate their exploration of their characters. </p><p>And the open-endedness isn't hypothetical. I made a point up-thread about Page 42, and about Skill Challenges. These were points I made for a reason, because in 4e at least, these are structured approaches to adjudicating open-ended situations (beyond just free-form narrative, which is always an option if everyone is cool with it, though if you go too far this way the 'game' aspect might be lost). Other games have similar 'channels'. There are a series of fairly open-ended moves in Dungeon World, such as 'discern realities' (and technically the soft and hard moves any PC move elicits are really limitless in potential). Going back to 4e, if the character attempts something that is beyond a simple application of a power/feat/action then, depending on the context, either Page 42 comes into play (generally used for things which are similar to a power and happen during combat or a similar situation), or a challenge exists. A challenge is simply a variety of an encounter, in essence, so it has a structured set of rules of its own, within which the PCs can pretty much try anything, including using their powers and such. It is really just a more generalized flavor of 'combat' in effect. It can even cover long periods of time, etc. if needed.</p><p>The SC is especially powerful, because it codifies the mechanical approach to the situation. The GM is allowed to determine a complexity level (really this is generally going to correspond to narrative weight) and from there everyone knows how many of what types of rolls are needed and how many advantages and hard checks may come into play. A player can thus reason about the degree to which a success at a given point will contribute to achieving the objective, and thus decide A) if it is a good idea, and B) if it is what his character would do. </p><p>The character would do side is related to the NARRATIVE, not to mechanics. So, does the narrative work if the PC decides to go all out and pay a big cost for success? Well, how does that story come out? If the character doesn't know she's in a conflict and needs to win, why would she do that? Sure, the player could insist, but the other participants are well within their rights to at least require an explanation. If the explanation is "a feeling comes over her that the stakes are high", well, what caused that? Now we're playing an interesting game! Something new is introduced (or the player decides maybe not to push the plot that way). </p><p>In order to assist in this kind of thing, and aim for a balance between players in this kind of input my own game (which started out being a lot like 4e) has resource expenditure for the PLAYER at this point. "OK, you can have a feeling come over Harriet, that will cost you a plot point." It just means the most 'forward' players don't get to drive everything all the time.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8112104, member: 82106"] Again though, you are supposing a sort of oppositional game play process where the players and GM's goals are at least partly in conflict with each other, such that the GM would try to 'reign in' players and part of his 'job' would be telling them they cannot do things. I don't play in that way, at all. It isn't my job to tell the players what their PCs can or cannot do. I can tell them what situation they are in, and I can present them with obstacles and resources which facilitate their exploration of their characters. And the open-endedness isn't hypothetical. I made a point up-thread about Page 42, and about Skill Challenges. These were points I made for a reason, because in 4e at least, these are structured approaches to adjudicating open-ended situations (beyond just free-form narrative, which is always an option if everyone is cool with it, though if you go too far this way the 'game' aspect might be lost). Other games have similar 'channels'. There are a series of fairly open-ended moves in Dungeon World, such as 'discern realities' (and technically the soft and hard moves any PC move elicits are really limitless in potential). Going back to 4e, if the character attempts something that is beyond a simple application of a power/feat/action then, depending on the context, either Page 42 comes into play (generally used for things which are similar to a power and happen during combat or a similar situation), or a challenge exists. A challenge is simply a variety of an encounter, in essence, so it has a structured set of rules of its own, within which the PCs can pretty much try anything, including using their powers and such. It is really just a more generalized flavor of 'combat' in effect. It can even cover long periods of time, etc. if needed. The SC is especially powerful, because it codifies the mechanical approach to the situation. The GM is allowed to determine a complexity level (really this is generally going to correspond to narrative weight) and from there everyone knows how many of what types of rolls are needed and how many advantages and hard checks may come into play. A player can thus reason about the degree to which a success at a given point will contribute to achieving the objective, and thus decide A) if it is a good idea, and B) if it is what his character would do. The character would do side is related to the NARRATIVE, not to mechanics. So, does the narrative work if the PC decides to go all out and pay a big cost for success? Well, how does that story come out? If the character doesn't know she's in a conflict and needs to win, why would she do that? Sure, the player could insist, but the other participants are well within their rights to at least require an explanation. If the explanation is "a feeling comes over her that the stakes are high", well, what caused that? Now we're playing an interesting game! Something new is introduced (or the player decides maybe not to push the plot that way). In order to assist in this kind of thing, and aim for a balance between players in this kind of input my own game (which started out being a lot like 4e) has resource expenditure for the PLAYER at this point. "OK, you can have a feeling come over Harriet, that will cost you a plot point." It just means the most 'forward' players don't get to drive everything all the time. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
"Hot" take: Aesthetically-pleasing rules are highly overvalued
Top