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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character
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="Balesir" data-source="post: 5670575" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>We say that climbers "conquer" mountains; I think tasks can be challenges/conflicts if they are a struggle to complete. And I think that, with the right degree of segregation and abstraction some engaging and tense conflict "mini-games" can be created for most conceivable challenges in D&D.</p><p></p><p>I think this could make a really blasting version of D&D, if done well, and I really do wish that this was where WotC were focussing their efforts.</p><p></p><p>This post described the cases where task-based (D&D/traditional RPG style) rules are useful really well. Where I disagree is that, for other cases, DM fiat is the best primary vehicle for in-play decision making - I don't think it is.</p><p></p><p>Several posters have talked about players "engaging" with the game play - I find this a trifle confusing, since players engage with the <strong>game</strong> elements of 4E all the time, but this appears not to be what they are referring to. I <em>think</em> what they mean is they want players to engage in (mentally) exploring the <strong>imaginary game setting</strong>. Some have said that they want players to "<em>think like a character in the setting</em>", which supports my belief, I think (brain hurts, now). I recognise this style of play; it's a fine option for a roleplaying campaign, even though I would not say that this style is, exclusively, what "roleplaying" <em>is</em> (as some seem to claim). But, I don't think this style is best supported by DM fiat in place of rules - even in theory.</p><p></p><p>If the imagined setting has a "master copy" that resides in the head of one player (the DM/GM), what you are asking the other players to do is play the part of individuals who have a comparatively huge bandwidth of information available about the game world - typically, we may assume that they have all of the sensory information that the players have about the "real" world. And yet the non-GM <em>players</em> have an incredibly narrow bandwidth of information available - generally only what the GM says and does. This is a fundamentally flawed construction.</p><p></p><p>To obtain the style of play desired, it seems to me that it would hold much more potential to focus on a few key aims:</p><p></p><p>1) Maximise the bandwidth where you can; shared drawings, written descriptions and miniatures setups and model representations could all be considered.</p><p></p><p>2) Remove or modify rules that do not contribute to the sharing of a congruent world vision. Rules that assist the players in understanding their characters, the world or other characters are fine, but things that do not relate to the world setting "reality" should be excised.</p><p></p><p>3) Give the players input to the world setting creation. To begin with, if they assume something about the setting that the GM did not, let it ride rather than contradicting them. Their imaginations have elaborated on the setting where the bandwidth of communication did not "fill in all the blanks" - let them fill that blank unless it causes problems more generally with the world. Further to this, invite player input to discuss how the game world "should" be. This mainly aims to use player expertise - either knowledge of foreign cultures or times, or logical thinking ability to spot where previously defined aspects of the game "reality" may clash with what is being proposed, or just creativity in coming up with neat ideas and concepts. Finally, when adjudicating the outcome of character actions, give the players a vote - literally. Remove the (natural) temptation to game the system/game the GM by making outcomes partly a matter of player choice. Make the exploration a game all present are participating in; relax your GM control a little, and see what magical places you can reach when everyone contributes to the emerging picture.</p><p></p><p>In summary, I recognise both styles of play [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] describes, but if I wanted to get to the one he claims is "non-rules focussed", I wouldn't start from D&D. I would still want rules - they would just be very different rules to those of "traditional" RPGs, and the role of "GM" would be very different, indeed.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5670575, member: 27160"] We say that climbers "conquer" mountains; I think tasks can be challenges/conflicts if they are a struggle to complete. And I think that, with the right degree of segregation and abstraction some engaging and tense conflict "mini-games" can be created for most conceivable challenges in D&D. I think this could make a really blasting version of D&D, if done well, and I really do wish that this was where WotC were focussing their efforts. This post described the cases where task-based (D&D/traditional RPG style) rules are useful really well. Where I disagree is that, for other cases, DM fiat is the best primary vehicle for in-play decision making - I don't think it is. Several posters have talked about players "engaging" with the game play - I find this a trifle confusing, since players engage with the [B]game[/B] elements of 4E all the time, but this appears not to be what they are referring to. I [I]think[/I] what they mean is they want players to engage in (mentally) exploring the [B]imaginary game setting[/B]. Some have said that they want players to "[I]think like a character in the setting[/I]", which supports my belief, I think (brain hurts, now). I recognise this style of play; it's a fine option for a roleplaying campaign, even though I would not say that this style is, exclusively, what "roleplaying" [I]is[/I] (as some seem to claim). But, I don't think this style is best supported by DM fiat in place of rules - even in theory. If the imagined setting has a "master copy" that resides in the head of one player (the DM/GM), what you are asking the other players to do is play the part of individuals who have a comparatively huge bandwidth of information available about the game world - typically, we may assume that they have all of the sensory information that the players have about the "real" world. And yet the non-GM [I]players[/I] have an incredibly narrow bandwidth of information available - generally only what the GM says and does. This is a fundamentally flawed construction. To obtain the style of play desired, it seems to me that it would hold much more potential to focus on a few key aims: 1) Maximise the bandwidth where you can; shared drawings, written descriptions and miniatures setups and model representations could all be considered. 2) Remove or modify rules that do not contribute to the sharing of a congruent world vision. Rules that assist the players in understanding their characters, the world or other characters are fine, but things that do not relate to the world setting "reality" should be excised. 3) Give the players input to the world setting creation. To begin with, if they assume something about the setting that the GM did not, let it ride rather than contradicting them. Their imaginations have elaborated on the setting where the bandwidth of communication did not "fill in all the blanks" - let them fill that blank unless it causes problems more generally with the world. Further to this, invite player input to discuss how the game world "should" be. This mainly aims to use player expertise - either knowledge of foreign cultures or times, or logical thinking ability to spot where previously defined aspects of the game "reality" may clash with what is being proposed, or just creativity in coming up with neat ideas and concepts. Finally, when adjudicating the outcome of character actions, give the players a vote - literally. Remove the (natural) temptation to game the system/game the GM by making outcomes partly a matter of player choice. Make the exploration a game all present are participating in; relax your GM control a little, and see what magical places you can reach when everyone contributes to the emerging picture. In summary, I recognise both styles of play [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] describes, but if I wanted to get to the one he claims is "non-rules focussed", I wouldn't start from D&D. I would still want rules - they would just be very different rules to those of "traditional" RPGs, and the role of "GM" would be very different, indeed. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character
Top