Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4277521" data-attributes="member: 42582">Skeptic, I've now been getting a chance to read my books, and I have to say that you are needlessly concerned by this sentence. After the sentence you have quoted, the paragraph continues &quot;You decide which door your character opens next. You decide whether to attack a monster, to negotiate with a villain, or to attempt a dangerous quest. You can make these decisions based on your character's personality, motivations and goals, and you can even speak or act in character if you like. You have almost limitless control over what your character can do and say in the game.&quot;This is not incoherent advocacy of actor stance. It flags actor stance as one possibility, but mostly it is explaining the notion that the PC is the principal vehicle whereby the player engages with the gameworld.Speaking of which, in the DMG there is a sidebar in which James Wyatt gives an example of his son adopting director's stance in a game, deciding that when his PC explores the statue he'll get hit by a trap and find a treasure.I haven't finished my reading yet, but so far I get the sense that the rulebooks are quite aware of the variety of playstyles possible, and are not advancing an incoherent play agenda.When I compare these to (for example) the 1991 Dark Sun books, which I've been reading recently after someone gave them to me, 4e seems to be an unparalleled attempt to present the D&amp;D rules as rules for playing a game, rather than as a mechanical representation of the gameworld.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4277521, member: 42582"] Skeptic, I've now been getting a chance to read my books, and I have to say that you are needlessly concerned by this sentence. After the sentence you have quoted, the paragraph continues "You decide which door your character opens next. You decide whether to attack a monster, to negotiate with a villain, or to attempt a dangerous quest. You can make these decisions based on your character's personality, motivations and goals, and you can even speak or act in character if you like. You have almost limitless control over what your character can do and say in the game." This is not incoherent advocacy of actor stance. It flags actor stance as one possibility, but mostly it is explaining the notion that the PC is the principal vehicle whereby the player engages with the gameworld. Speaking of which, in the DMG there is a sidebar in which James Wyatt gives an example of his son adopting director's stance in a game, deciding that when his PC explores the statue he'll get hit by a trap and find a treasure. I haven't finished my reading yet, but so far I get the sense that the rulebooks are quite aware of the variety of playstyles possible, and are not advancing an incoherent play agenda. When I compare these to (for example) the 1991 Dark Sun books, which I've been reading recently after someone gave them to me, 4e seems to be an unparalleled attempt to present the D&D rules as rules for playing a game, rather than as a mechanical representation of the gameworld. [/QUOTE]

Verification