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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7073160" data-attributes="member: 6696971">You're welcome.Can you try explain how you think this might come about in a Dungeon World game (despite the fact that it is a transparent violation of the game's play Agenda, a few GMing principles, and would actually be more difficult to do than just letting things unfold naturally)?  I think I may have an idea of what you have in mind.My own thoughts on the above?Here is the thing on this.  You can break the sum agency of a game down into:GM AgencyPlayer AgencySystem AgencyI've brought this up before a few times in this thread, but I truly cannot stress how integral this is to our discussion (generally across the scope of this thread and specifically for the you and I right now).So you're correct that all three of B/X, Dungeon World, and 5e require GM judgement.  However, there are significant differences in:a)  Scope and type of System Agency (this includes top-down play Agenda, resolution mechanics, and general procedures)b)  Latitude or constraints on GM Agency due to System Agency and GMing principles (or lackthereof)c)  Expectant Player Agency as a result of genre, social contract and that provided by System Agency (including PC build mechanics).As a result of this, GMing in each of these systems has different kind and type of cognitive workload in each moment of play and mental overhead sum total in the course of their duties.  More on this directly below:Do I think running 5e without deploying any Illuiosionism at all could yield precisely the sequence of the Dungeon World excerpt upthread?  Yes, I do, but it would have a considerably more difficult time doing it reliably because (i) the fundamental system maths disparity, (ii) the very different resolution mechanics/resource models/play procedures, and (iii) the deep disparity of System Agency and GMing Agency between the two systems.  So with that said, let us go back to a - c above and then consider the following components of 5e's GMing ethos:* ...as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them.* <the DM> creates and runs adventures that drive the story. * Inventing, writing, storytelling, improvising, acting, refereeing...Focus on the aspects you enjoy and downplay the rest. * ...the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game. There is a lot more than that including the profound role that the GM plays in determining outcomes merely in the course of mediation procedures.  On the continuum of GM Agency, 5e is on the extreme of one side.  As GM Agency becomes more prolific, System Agency becomes less so.  The game outright gives the GM a mandate to ignore/change/downplay/subordinate the rules.  Also consider the expectation that the GMs created/run adventures drives the story.  That has a lot to say about (c) vs (b) when compared to Dungeon World.  Also consider the fact that the games encounter building tools are absolutely broken (and I said they would turn out that way during the playtest because of fundamental design decisions).  When the apex priority of play is to "create epic stories filled with tension and memorable drama", all of this stuff combined puts a lot of pressure on the GM (while enabling them considerably) to deploy Force/Illusionism techniques (which you see advocated for in some of the early WotC modules) such that the yield of play is indeed that "tension and memorable drama" with the gross becoming "epic stories."So with all of this in mind, I'm left wondering why GM Force/Illusionism is something to be protested in 5e?  The text certainly doesn't decry it as taboo.  In fact, it at least tacitly embraces it due to all of the above (and I'd say tacitly is a massive understatement).Again, all of that being said, I still stand by my position that you can absolutely run 5e without any Force or Illusionism.  When I run it, I use my friend's hexcrawl/setting/maps, pick up where he left off the week before, deploy the resolution mechanics in orthodox process sim fashion (with the 10 Ability Score laymen as the model) and basically just eyeball the Encounter Budget with a keen eye toward numerical superiority, spellcasting, and team action economy (my profound experience with these games is more robust than their, predictably, wobbly encounter design).  I use Success with Complications (DMG 242) except use failure by 3 or less rather than 2.  Still, while my experience and my house-ruled use of Success with Complications certainly helps along yielding "tension and memorable drama" in most moments of play, it doesn't remotely produce it as organically (and with less cognitive workload and attendant stress) and inexorably as Dungeon World (and I certainly don't get to "play to find out" in the way that I do with DW).  It seems to me that 5e's answer to that is GM Force/Illusionism to bridge those gaps.I'm going to sblock the entirety of the "Sled into the Glacial Crevasse" scene for your reference.  This may give you further insight into things and may help our conversation along so I'll put the work in:[sblock][/sblock]Agreed.  Generating a full hexcrawl/setting map with a metaplot vs "make a map with blanks" + "play to find out" + "generate a few Fronts that challenges the player's goals" is definitely not a different species.  The devil is in the details of prep, system, and play (both procedures and outcome).</blockquote>

Verification