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: 6112949" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't actually agree with this. To see why, pop over to the "surprising the GM" thread.On that thread, another poster and I are setting out criteria for good GMing (ie GMing we enjoy, both as players and GMs) which to us are as clear as day. Yet other posters not only can't understand our criteria, they are coming close to (if not outright) telling us that our criteria don't really exist, and can't be effectively applied to run a game.Meanwhile that other poster and I are happily running our games by our criteria, and having no trouble at all interpreting the logic of on another's posts.So I think there are some big gulfs in playstyle. And I think it's better for the game - especially if it's meant to be the "umbrella edition", covering everyone - if we're clear about this from the outset, and look at how the game might work to provide maximum coverage, rather than if we proceed on the assumption that we're all pretty much doing the same thing and so she'll be right mate.Concrete example: I think the idea of stat checks with skills as (almost) free descriptors is the single best mechanical idea to appear so far in D&Dnext.But the rules, to date, emphasise that it is up to the GM to regulate which stat is used; whereas I think the rules could mention a range of approaches, from GM authority to group consensus (single player authority perhaps has its own problems because of the player's conflict of interest). For me, for instance, if a player is engaged enough in the game to find ways to frame every situation so his/her dump stat never comes into play, I say "Excellent. I want more of those players, please!" But other groups would feel that that's tantamount to cheating, or obnoxious metagaming by the player, or something similar.So the rules should acknowledge this, and spell out the different approaches and the sorts of play experiences they can lead to. Which would also require the designers to acknowledge, for instance, that the sort of GM judgement involved in adjudicating a stat check is completely different from the sort of GM judgement involved in managing the pacing of a Vancian-based game. For me, one sort of judgement - the first - can be part of a good game if handled in the right way, but the other - GM management of Vancian pacing - is just toxic.And hence other sorts of options, for a wider range of preferences, would be workd out.That would be an inclusive edition.</blockquote>

Verification