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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Beginning of the End" data-source="post: 5496789" data-attributes="member: 55271">You seem to be drawing an equation between improv-based play ("just in time GMing") and a specific flavor of narrativist gaming ("engaging thematic themes") that I'm not really following.I can see how both can co-exist, obviously. But they're tangentially related to each other.Can you articulate the distinction you see between picking a paragon path and picking a prestige class in terms of the player "setting the thematic tone of the game"?Can you explain exactly how the mechanics of 4th Edition explicitly support "scene framing" vs. "scene extrapolation"? Could you point to demonstrations of this technique being employed in the adventures written by the designers of 4th Edition?Can you explain what any of that has to do with "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...) and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this thematic material"?Can you explain how the inability for a high level fighter to grapple a giant squid interferes with your ability to do "character- and situation-focused narrativist play (...) in which the  players build rich and compelling thematic material into their PCs (...)  and the GM frames and resolves situations which engage with this  thematic material"?I'll admit that I may be having difficulty grasping your point because I find Czege's description of scene-framing to be complete and utter <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. If you took his description at complete face-value, he's advocating an approach where Scene 2 has absolutely no logical connection to Scene 1 which immediately proceeded it. I find it difficult to imagine taking any game played that way seriously for more than a couple of minutes.Once you accept that Czege has abused hyperbole to the point where it's obscuring his actual point, I still have some difficulty processing Czege's position because he bases most of his rhetoric around a constrast of "GM controls point A, players control point B" with "players control point A, GM predetermines point B". He's playing a shell game of, "Where do ya want your railroad?" But my gut reaction to Czege is pretty much a constant subliminal refrain of, "Take your railroad and stuff it."So if your point really does boil down to, "4E is better than 3E for GMs who want to railroad their players in very specific ways." I'm willing to believe it. But you still haven't made your case.This does begin to make sense, though. Since you specifically want to be able to shamelessly railroad your players, it makes sense that abilities which allow the players to avoid your shameless railroading would be problematic for you.This becomes an interesting point, because it gets to the heart of my problem with the skill challenge mechanics: They specifically interfere with the GM's ability to frame scenes. On the one hand, they violate the chain of causal logic which allows me to suspend disbelief and actually participate in the game world. On the other hand, they frequently become tedious when they mandate that play continues even after the scene has functionally exhausted and resolved itself in the minds of the players.You know the bit where Czege talks about ending a scene when you've done all the interesting stuff you can do with it? Good advice. And skill challenges muck that up.</blockquote>

Verification