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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6120495" data-attributes="member: 42582">One useful thing it could do is be upfront about differences in playstyle.The 4e GM doesn't really talk about this at all. It talks about player personality types - "powergamers", "method actors" etc - but it doesn't relate these to the actual role/function of the players in the game, and the role/function of the GM.This is currently being discussed at length in the "Surprising the GM thread", but one difference of style that has come out in that thread is this:* Is it the players job to simply play their PCs, and (via their PCs) to engage whatever scenario or setting the GM puts in front of them? * Or is it the players job to set an agenda for play (by a combination of in-character actions and out-of-character conversations), which the GM then responds to by framing scenes/situations that support that agenda?Both approaches are viable, but they have pretty big implications for how the GM should set things up, whether alignment rules are a help or a hindrance (see the current "So what's wrong with restrictions?" thread), who has the authority at the table to "handwave" the action rather than engage the action resolution rules, etc.Modules could then be written up not just in mechanical terms, but in relation to how they fit in with different play approaches (for instance, if the players are setting the agenda, but the group also wants wizards and fighters to be balanced in terms of mechancial effectiveness, you might want to look at a module that puts spell recovery and hit point recovry on the same cycle, so that there is no conflict of interest between your fighter players and your wizard players when it comes to setting the agenda).</blockquote>

Verification