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
*TTRPGs General
Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
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="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7559222" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I get all this. Not everyone runs games RAW, and, more importantly Permerton, everyone runs games differently. This is honestly the part you seem to have the largest trouble understanding. In the other thread you appear to see people expressing their preferences as them calling into question the beauty and richness of your own explored world (or calling into question your ability to label that exploration). I don't think anyone is doing so. Here is an example of peoples' brains and styles just dealing with things in different ways. And it isn't necessarily about system. I always assume players can declare any action they want, regardless of class or the exact details of the system. If a wizard wants to declare he tries to grab the chandelier and swing into the fray, I let him try whether the system clearly lays that out or not. But when someone proposes a long terms series of actions, a prefer to break them down to their individual components. Especially when people are investigating. Now that is not 100% the case. Someones the game is clearly in a space where time is elapsing differently (i.e. if I have a game where I am glossing over huge expanses of time as players travel, and encounters along the way are not an important feature of the campaign or less frequent, I may just say "what do you guys do during the 2 week journey---and they could give a list of things, which we might play out at the ground level in some instances). I think the key is when do you focus on the 1-1 details, where what the character says specifically is key, what the character does specifically is key. There are just some places in the game, we don't want to <em>automatically</em> cede to a processes, mechanic, etc. The reason is quite simple, this is how, for us, we preserve the sense that the players actions have a clear cause and effect in a world that feels external to them. You don't do it this way. That is fine with us. But you keep going back to the same points, insistenting we are doing things we don't believe we are doing, and lording your results over others like this is some kind of competition (again in the other thread you are literally holding up your explored worlds against anyone else). I don't particularly doubt that your worlds or awesome or that your GMing abilities are great. Nor do I really care to be honest. I never claimed to be a great GM. In fact I'd say I am an average GM. Some sessions are great, some aren't, some I am not as clear headed as I'd like. And because of that, I find I like to have a reliable approach that works for me at the table. I've tried every approach under the sun I can finding my 30+ years of gaming. This is the one that works for me. And your description of this approach just doesn't reflect the nuance of what I see at the table. </p><p></p><p>I genuinely do not understand why you can't just adopt something approaching a live and let live attitude on this. Someone says they like the GM to decide what is at a teahouse and you launch a whole thread on whether the game world and the real world can ever be said to be similar in any way. You insist on labeling this approach in dismissive language, even when people point out why it clearly doesn't even match those labels, and why it is not productive for conversation. It doesn't feel like you really have an interest in convincing people about your ideas at this point. Because your whole approach just puts people on the defensive. Believe me, we are fully capable of turning the tables on you with our approaches. I've learned long ago that isn't the way to understand other approaches to play. I'm genuinely interested in the procedures someone like you follows. I am genuinely curious what you want out of the game. But, if you are going to be a jerk about it and cast negative terms on me while you promote your style, it is going to be very hard for me to listen to you charitably. That is just human nature. This is why I can disagree in a friendly way with Innerdude, who really doesn't hold that different of a position than you, but keep clashing with you.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 7559222, member: 85555"] I get all this. Not everyone runs games RAW, and, more importantly Permerton, everyone runs games differently. This is honestly the part you seem to have the largest trouble understanding. In the other thread you appear to see people expressing their preferences as them calling into question the beauty and richness of your own explored world (or calling into question your ability to label that exploration). I don't think anyone is doing so. Here is an example of peoples' brains and styles just dealing with things in different ways. And it isn't necessarily about system. I always assume players can declare any action they want, regardless of class or the exact details of the system. If a wizard wants to declare he tries to grab the chandelier and swing into the fray, I let him try whether the system clearly lays that out or not. But when someone proposes a long terms series of actions, a prefer to break them down to their individual components. Especially when people are investigating. Now that is not 100% the case. Someones the game is clearly in a space where time is elapsing differently (i.e. if I have a game where I am glossing over huge expanses of time as players travel, and encounters along the way are not an important feature of the campaign or less frequent, I may just say "what do you guys do during the 2 week journey---and they could give a list of things, which we might play out at the ground level in some instances). I think the key is when do you focus on the 1-1 details, where what the character says specifically is key, what the character does specifically is key. There are just some places in the game, we don't want to [I]automatically[/I] cede to a processes, mechanic, etc. The reason is quite simple, this is how, for us, we preserve the sense that the players actions have a clear cause and effect in a world that feels external to them. You don't do it this way. That is fine with us. But you keep going back to the same points, insistenting we are doing things we don't believe we are doing, and lording your results over others like this is some kind of competition (again in the other thread you are literally holding up your explored worlds against anyone else). I don't particularly doubt that your worlds or awesome or that your GMing abilities are great. Nor do I really care to be honest. I never claimed to be a great GM. In fact I'd say I am an average GM. Some sessions are great, some aren't, some I am not as clear headed as I'd like. And because of that, I find I like to have a reliable approach that works for me at the table. I've tried every approach under the sun I can finding my 30+ years of gaming. This is the one that works for me. And your description of this approach just doesn't reflect the nuance of what I see at the table. I genuinely do not understand why you can't just adopt something approaching a live and let live attitude on this. Someone says they like the GM to decide what is at a teahouse and you launch a whole thread on whether the game world and the real world can ever be said to be similar in any way. You insist on labeling this approach in dismissive language, even when people point out why it clearly doesn't even match those labels, and why it is not productive for conversation. It doesn't feel like you really have an interest in convincing people about your ideas at this point. Because your whole approach just puts people on the defensive. Believe me, we are fully capable of turning the tables on you with our approaches. I've learned long ago that isn't the way to understand other approaches to play. I'm genuinely interested in the procedures someone like you follows. I am genuinely curious what you want out of the game. But, if you are going to be a jerk about it and cast negative terms on me while you promote your style, it is going to be very hard for me to listen to you charitably. That is just human nature. This is why I can disagree in a friendly way with Innerdude, who really doesn't hold that different of a position than you, but keep clashing with you. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Introducing Complications Without Forcing Players to Play the "Mother May I?" Game
Top