Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kromanjon" data-source="post: 9622493" data-attributes="member: 20680">I don't think Mearls have any interest in returning to this thread so let's take his last comment and make a study of it. Let us look at the words that have lead to such polarizing opinions. Grab your SCUBA gear, we're doing a deep dive.Ah, that's nice.Never read anything about this so I have to take his word that this is the definition Suits came up with.Here it seems like some see this example as bad taste because the death of some characters lead to what was considered a fun game.I think it's an example of emergent storytelling. Three characters lost their heads toa vorpal sword and the remaining managed to turn a tragedy into a triumph. Had they fled it would be a story of a tragic loss. Had they retreated, regrouped and returned to exact revenge it would be a story of loss and vengeance. No matter which one of these stories was told the game had to support the fact that characters could die, otherwise none of those stories could happen.Here we see if he can hold ttrpgs to the definition stated above. Saying that ttrpgs are voluntary doesn't seem controversial at all. There might be some who feel forced to participate at times but the base idea should be that every one plays of their own free will. The second part is that the obstacles are unnecessary, something I feel comes with them being voluntary. Since we choose to face the obstacles there is also a choice not to face them making them unnecessary.He does make some assumptions here on what players expect from AD&D and also the part about success being "far from assured" since this seems more based upon each individual obstacle where success can be more, or less, assured. The last part does seem important, him mentioning that the stakes could be character death but might also be a nebulous other thing.Next he claims the importance of a session 0 or similar tool, something I could debate by saying that some groups are just so comfortable in the style of game they're playing that this is not needed. Of course this doesn't take away from the actual point that everyone in the game need to be on the same page regarding what kind of game they're playing. I'm not sure about the "actively support" when understanding and agreeing might suffice.Now we come to the nitty gritty. Is the GMs goal to defeat or foil the players? Yes. According to what he writes the GM should oppose the players. The interesting thing about this is that it actually goes against the usual OSR spiel about the GM being a neutral arbiter or referee. This is, in other words, doesn't just go against the modern GM who's a "fan of the PCs" and "makes sure everyone is having fun" but also the OSR GM who "makes rulings" and "keeps an organized timetable".This GM wants to stop the things the players aspire to.Mearls follows this by stating that a good system enables this with the help of "disinterested mechanics". I'm guessing (yes guessing) he's referring to a good system in that it adheres to the definition set by Suits earlier.This is the beautiful part. If you accept all that. Maybe you don't. Well, then I guess this doesn't apply to you, does it? I could just stop here and say that I don't accept it. We all know adversarial GMs are the worst so why would anyone accept this?Oh, I just can't help myself. Say I did accept it, what would that entail, mr. Mearls?Yes, please give me some purpose. I obviously need it after writing all this.Interesting. A mechanism (which I would presume he means game mechanic) to establish stakes. Sound almost like the oracle type mechanic from one of them solo-rpgs. So is he looking to take away GM fiat in this, creating a game that decide the stakes in a neutral, "disinterested" way. This does seem to go against the session 0 where the type of game, as well as the stakes, where decided by the group but perhaps he means something more granular while the session 0 stakes where grander in scale.A game presenting obstacles doesn't seem to be standard fare. Monsters, trap and such. There might be more to this but there isn't much here to work with.Ok. So the rules should be so neutral that the GM can go hog wild trying to kill the PCs but he wont have the control ordinarily attributed the GM. Basicaly it sound like the rules should hamper the GM creating more like a balanced wargame or boardgame interface where each party can use the tools presented to them to their fullest. This would create an understanding between players and GM that there is more of a no holds bared type of situation and that death could always be on the table.Seems like an interesting idea but it also sounds more like a rules over rulings type of system and I'm wondering who would make final rulings when rules would come into question.Honestly these three points didn't really give me all that much to work with. I'm curious what kind of game he's working on but I'd like to see more details and examples. It seems to be an interesting structure to base a game upon but I can already see some possible shortcomings that it would have to adress.I don't spend any time swimming in the cesspit that used to be called Twitter so I'll miss his follow ups. Does anyone know if he's posted anything else?NOTE: Anything written above are my own opinions on the post written på user mearls. None of it should be considered any more or less than speculation. I have nothing invested in the success of neither WotCs or Mike Mearls' products.</blockquote>

Verification