Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8312618" data-attributes="member: 42582">What does letting the table do whatever they want with that mean?I mean, any table of people meeting for a leisure-time activity can always do whatever they want. I can treat a Burning Wheel PC sheet as a set of descriptors if I want, just the same as a table of 5e D&amp;D players might.But my very strong impression, from reading many posts and correlating them to my own experience of games that take a very similar approach to PC build (ie stats + skills + special abilities whose basic design template is the classic D&amp;D spell), is that what we have is a system where the GM decides, on the basis of more-or-less table conversation and consensus, what happens next.To me that is not flexible at all. It's a single way of playing a RPG. And at least on this point, I think [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] agrees and as I read his posts this is a part of (not all of) what he is saying.Can you point me to actual play accounts of a 5e D&amp;D game involving two players playing two PCs and simultaneously GMing for one another? The only accounts of this I've ever heard, as far as D&amp;D play is concerned, involve random dungeon generation along the lines of Gygax's DMG Appendix A - which doesn't really involve simultaneous GMing so much as outsourcing the content generation to the charts and relying on the resolution processes alone, without GM judgement, to decide what happens next.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8312618, member: 42582"] What does [I]letting the table do whatever they want with that[/I] mean? I mean, any table of people meeting for a leisure-time activity can always do whatever they want. I can treat a Burning Wheel PC sheet as a set of descriptors if I want, just the same as a table of 5e D&D players might. But my very strong impression, from reading many posts and correlating them to my own experience of games that take a very similar approach to PC build (ie stats + skills + special abilities whose basic design template is the classic D&D spell), is that what we have is a system where the GM decides, on the basis of more-or-less table conversation and consensus, what happens next. To me that is not flexible at all. It's a single way of playing a RPG. And at least on this point, I think [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] agrees and as I read his posts this is a part of (not all of) what he is saying. Can you point me to actual play accounts of a 5e D&D game involving two players playing two PCs and simultaneously GMing for one another? The only accounts of this I've ever heard, as far as D&D play is concerned, involve random dungeon generation along the lines of Gygax's DMG Appendix A - which doesn't really involve simultaneous GMing so much as outsourcing the content generation to the charts and relying on the resolution processes alone, without GM judgement, to decide what happens next. [/QUOTE]

Verification