Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6339981" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>I think it is very mainstream.</p><p></p><p>I don't think its "a problem", per se. Its certainly not a problem insofar as its a mainstream mode of play and people have fun.</p><p></p><p>I just think that there may be a contention at its core that strains credulity; that being that each of these agendas function in harmony with one another rather than pushing against each other. That can't possibly be true (for the reasons I state above). At any one time, a GM will have to subordinate one interest for another (or possibly two others), be it worthy climax over player agency in action declaration and resolution or living/breathing world over worthy climax. I would say those two prioritizations are the most predominant.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>What you describe is unfortunate because I think your response is a pretty common one for an analytical, experienced player who is looking for a certain type of experience. Its emotionally and immersively jarring from a genre perspective to have the autonomy of your, very reasonable (and intentionally helpful for the GM), "move" subordinated by the GM's will. </p><p></p><p>If it was coming from another angle, the "wargaming" perspective, it would be dissatisfying to have your strategic planning, tactics, and finally your action declaration upended by by an agenda at odds with that, which could either by the living/breathing world or the GM-imposed climax. Worse yet, is when the GM's model that spits out the living/breathing world doesn't match your own and not only have they imposed on your player agency but they've simultaneously hindered your immersion interests.</p><p></p><p>Great GMing requires an understanding that you can always get better and you can always learn something new. I think a lot of long-time GMs might be far too steeped in their sense of their proficiency in their craft such that they are not disinclined toward (a) learning from their players or (b) learning from new approaches. Methinks your GM could use a does of both.</p><p></p><p>I think always adopting and maintaining a philosophy of "I'm not as good as I think I am and I'm not as good as I'm going to be" is good medicine for GM's whose sense of themselves and their craft has ossified.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p> Yes and yes.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>If I were a player in a sim-heavy game I would be very averse to my GM having any balls in the air regarding a worthy climax, outside of initial situation framing. I wouldn't want climax to be GM-imposed. I would want all elements of the framing to be clear so that my decision-points are as well-informed as I can get them. Come what may. Whatever climax, dud or provocative, emerges from those decision-points and mechanical resolution is my (our) own to wear. This is, of course, a classic Step On Up (Wargamer) + Right To Dream (Simulation) hybrid. Those agendas can play nice with each other. When GMs get their hands in the cookie jar of climax-imposition/enforcement, that is when things can go pear-shaped. It better be with an extraordinarily deft touch (illusionism) or your players' wargaming interests would need to be rather milquetoast.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6339981, member: 6696971"] I think it is very mainstream. I don't think its "a problem", per se. Its certainly not a problem insofar as its a mainstream mode of play and people have fun. I just think that there may be a contention at its core that strains credulity; that being that each of these agendas function in harmony with one another rather than pushing against each other. That can't possibly be true (for the reasons I state above). At any one time, a GM will have to subordinate one interest for another (or possibly two others), be it worthy climax over player agency in action declaration and resolution or living/breathing world over worthy climax. I would say those two prioritizations are the most predominant. What you describe is unfortunate because I think your response is a pretty common one for an analytical, experienced player who is looking for a certain type of experience. Its emotionally and immersively jarring from a genre perspective to have the autonomy of your, very reasonable (and intentionally helpful for the GM), "move" subordinated by the GM's will. If it was coming from another angle, the "wargaming" perspective, it would be dissatisfying to have your strategic planning, tactics, and finally your action declaration upended by by an agenda at odds with that, which could either by the living/breathing world or the GM-imposed climax. Worse yet, is when the GM's model that spits out the living/breathing world doesn't match your own and not only have they imposed on your player agency but they've simultaneously hindered your immersion interests. Great GMing requires an understanding that you can always get better and you can always learn something new. I think a lot of long-time GMs might be far too steeped in their sense of their proficiency in their craft such that they are not disinclined toward (a) learning from their players or (b) learning from new approaches. Methinks your GM could use a does of both. I think always adopting and maintaining a philosophy of "I'm not as good as I think I am and I'm not as good as I'm going to be" is good medicine for GM's whose sense of themselves and their craft has ossified. Yes and yes. If I were a player in a sim-heavy game I would be very averse to my GM having any balls in the air regarding a worthy climax, outside of initial situation framing. I wouldn't want climax to be GM-imposed. I would want all elements of the framing to be clear so that my decision-points are as well-informed as I can get them. Come what may. Whatever climax, dud or provocative, emerges from those decision-points and mechanical resolution is my (our) own to wear. This is, of course, a classic Step On Up (Wargamer) + Right To Dream (Simulation) hybrid. Those agendas can play nice with each other. When GMs get their hands in the cookie jar of climax-imposition/enforcement, that is when things can go pear-shaped. It better be with an extraordinarily deft touch (illusionism) or your players' wargaming interests would need to be rather milquetoast. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
More DMing analysis from Lewis Pulsipher
Top