Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
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: 5672632" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>Whew - such a flow of stuff to respond to - I'll try to cover the main areas all in one post.</p><p></p><p>True enough, D&D is apparently seen as a "go-to" game, and I think that leads to a whole slew of problems because roleplaying really is not one, unified activity (even though the activities that comprise it may and, I think, should be kept under the umbrella of a single "hobby").</p><p></p><p>I wish I could share your optimism that a "compromise system" would bring all the "factions" back to the same table. I don't believe it would. In the "olden days", D&D was basically all there was for fantasy RPGing. With the advent of more coherent, more focussed game systems, however, groups who have always had specific tastes have "seen the promised land" in some of the new systems that have come out. Ask them to go back to the compromised cludges of the past, and my bet is that they won't be interested. The odd game "for old time's sake", maybe, or to meet up with old buddies. But not to actually play the dratted things for any length of time.</p><p></p><p></p><p>A system cannot, as far as I can see, adequately support multiple styles. The style I play D&D for, as an example, requires a subtle, interlocking system because I seek to challenge <u>the players</u> to develop tactics and strategies <em>within the game</em> in response to the game situation. No previous edition of D&D has been even a fraction as good at this as 4E. No system that is good at supporting the other styles discussed here (which mostly require good rules for allocating authority for resolution selection and narration - frankly, allocating it more widely than the DM would help but many "old school" DMs reject this vehemently - and rules for collaborative plot definition) will support this type of play remotely.</p><p></p><p>My own conclusion is that no system can support all agendas adequately; the best that can be achieved is to support a defined agenda for play really well. This supposes and requires a shift from "one true system" to a (fairly small) selection of "core systems" that, between them, cover all the main agendas for play.</p><p></p><p>Another common belief that I think is a fallacy is that a specific player can, or will tend to, enjoy only one of the possible foci of play. My experience is that many players can enjoy several different styles; what they frequently <em><strong>don't</strong></em> enjoy is when neither the system nor the game setup gives them any indication of the desired style, so they begin playing expecting and conforming with their own assumed or previously used style when the rest of the group - or even just the GM - is aiming for a different agenda. Probably, the group or GM are simply assuming that this agenda they are aiming for is the "natural" or "correct" one. such clashes cause deep, often painful, problems.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The value of the interlocking set is that it becomes possible to challenge <strong>the players</strong> (rather than the characters) within the scope of the game system. This has a couple of advantages, for certain play styles:</p><p></p><p>1) Challenging <em>the players</em> rather than the characters is important for a Gamist agenda for play; if the players are not challenged, they are not playing a 'game', and</p><p></p><p>2) Challenging the players <em>within the game system</em> gets away from problems of "playing the GM", "mother may I", favouritism and simple GM delusions about how hard their game is. Everyone may read and understand the system, so everyone has the opportunity to start on a "level playing field" for the challenges they, the players, will face.</p><p></p><p>4E specifically trumps 3E in this specific regard, because the main avenues for system-based challenge are during actual play, not during pre-play set-up for the game (building characters, etc.). This gets away from systemic preference for those with lots of free time and no life... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>Exactly my point. And rules, whatever form they take and whatever agenda they seek optimally to support, are always better at supporting the selected agenda/style if they are focussed and integrated. Hence the current dilemma of the "generalist" game; the "specialist" games will always be better at their chosen style, so those who prefer that style have little incentive to play the "generalist" oeuvres.</p><p></p><p>So you develop something with bits and pieces of everything? I don't see that satisfying anybody, I'm afraid.</p><p></p><p>D20 was a selection of different games with a unifying brand identity. Using d20s for task resolution is not a "system" - it's a mechanism.</p><p></p><p>So that I have to formulate the rules I actually want to play by from a morass of ideas that they want me to pay for all of? What am I paying these guys for, exactly? Sorry, I don't see myself, just for one, having any inclination to buy such a mess at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Um, I think you have this almost entirely around the wrong way. Narrativism is about plot is about characters with motivation ("dramatic need") facing failure to satisfy that need - so failure is "assumed", otherwise you have no story. Gamism is about "stepping up" to the challenge as a player and winning; failure is no fun, but is a risk necessary to make the success fun. Simulationism is really neutral about success or failure, by definition; life happens as it happens, even when it's an imaginary life.</p><p></p><p></p><p><em><strong>This</strong></em> is your excuse for making D&D the "strategic ground" to be seized??? Sheesh - can someone take 4E and make it "not D&D", please? I want to play it because it's a good, Gamist supporting game, not because of some hokey duff like this. We needed to buy new books for the new edition anyway - are you really saying that 'the industry' should mark all the books you should buy to relieve you of having to make a buying decision? Good grief.</p><p></p><p>Note: I'm not actually sure you <em>are</em> saying this, actually; you might be just explaining what you see others as doing/thinking. My stated opinion is of the point of view, not the expounder of it.</p><p></p><p>Yeah, now, this I agree with.</p><p></p><p></p><p>I find it fun to have player skill tested, too, but I don't agree that "20 questions", "Mastermind" or "What am I thinking now?" are the only (or even best) ways to "test player skill". I prefer, when playing or running "test the player" games, to frame those challenges within the game system and preferably during the actual play at the table rather than in preparation time. This "defines the playing field" somewhat, and allows clear rules of play to be framed - considerations that are not relevant for "story-seeking" or "daydreaming" play.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5672632, member: 27160"] Whew - such a flow of stuff to respond to - I'll try to cover the main areas all in one post. True enough, D&D is apparently seen as a "go-to" game, and I think that leads to a whole slew of problems because roleplaying really is not one, unified activity (even though the activities that comprise it may and, I think, should be kept under the umbrella of a single "hobby"). I wish I could share your optimism that a "compromise system" would bring all the "factions" back to the same table. I don't believe it would. In the "olden days", D&D was basically all there was for fantasy RPGing. With the advent of more coherent, more focussed game systems, however, groups who have always had specific tastes have "seen the promised land" in some of the new systems that have come out. Ask them to go back to the compromised cludges of the past, and my bet is that they won't be interested. The odd game "for old time's sake", maybe, or to meet up with old buddies. But not to actually play the dratted things for any length of time. A system cannot, as far as I can see, adequately support multiple styles. The style I play D&D for, as an example, requires a subtle, interlocking system because I seek to challenge [U]the players[/U] to develop tactics and strategies [I]within the game[/I] in response to the game situation. No previous edition of D&D has been even a fraction as good at this as 4E. No system that is good at supporting the other styles discussed here (which mostly require good rules for allocating authority for resolution selection and narration - frankly, allocating it more widely than the DM would help but many "old school" DMs reject this vehemently - and rules for collaborative plot definition) will support this type of play remotely. My own conclusion is that no system can support all agendas adequately; the best that can be achieved is to support a defined agenda for play really well. This supposes and requires a shift from "one true system" to a (fairly small) selection of "core systems" that, between them, cover all the main agendas for play. Another common belief that I think is a fallacy is that a specific player can, or will tend to, enjoy only one of the possible foci of play. My experience is that many players can enjoy several different styles; what they frequently [I][B]don't[/B][/I][B][/B] enjoy is when neither the system nor the game setup gives them any indication of the desired style, so they begin playing expecting and conforming with their own assumed or previously used style when the rest of the group - or even just the GM - is aiming for a different agenda. Probably, the group or GM are simply assuming that this agenda they are aiming for is the "natural" or "correct" one. such clashes cause deep, often painful, problems. The value of the interlocking set is that it becomes possible to challenge [B]the players[/B] (rather than the characters) within the scope of the game system. This has a couple of advantages, for certain play styles: 1) Challenging [I]the players[/I] rather than the characters is important for a Gamist agenda for play; if the players are not challenged, they are not playing a 'game', and 2) Challenging the players [I]within the game system[/I] gets away from problems of "playing the GM", "mother may I", favouritism and simple GM delusions about how hard their game is. Everyone may read and understand the system, so everyone has the opportunity to start on a "level playing field" for the challenges they, the players, will face. 4E specifically trumps 3E in this specific regard, because the main avenues for system-based challenge are during actual play, not during pre-play set-up for the game (building characters, etc.). This gets away from systemic preference for those with lots of free time and no life... ;) Exactly my point. And rules, whatever form they take and whatever agenda they seek optimally to support, are always better at supporting the selected agenda/style if they are focussed and integrated. Hence the current dilemma of the "generalist" game; the "specialist" games will always be better at their chosen style, so those who prefer that style have little incentive to play the "generalist" oeuvres. So you develop something with bits and pieces of everything? I don't see that satisfying anybody, I'm afraid. D20 was a selection of different games with a unifying brand identity. Using d20s for task resolution is not a "system" - it's a mechanism. So that I have to formulate the rules I actually want to play by from a morass of ideas that they want me to pay for all of? What am I paying these guys for, exactly? Sorry, I don't see myself, just for one, having any inclination to buy such a mess at all. Um, I think you have this almost entirely around the wrong way. Narrativism is about plot is about characters with motivation ("dramatic need") facing failure to satisfy that need - so failure is "assumed", otherwise you have no story. Gamism is about "stepping up" to the challenge as a player and winning; failure is no fun, but is a risk necessary to make the success fun. Simulationism is really neutral about success or failure, by definition; life happens as it happens, even when it's an imaginary life. [I][B]This[/B][/I] is your excuse for making D&D the "strategic ground" to be seized??? Sheesh - can someone take 4E and make it "not D&D", please? I want to play it because it's a good, Gamist supporting game, not because of some hokey duff like this. We needed to buy new books for the new edition anyway - are you really saying that 'the industry' should mark all the books you should buy to relieve you of having to make a buying decision? Good grief. Note: I'm not actually sure you [I]are[/I] saying this, actually; you might be just explaining what you see others as doing/thinking. My stated opinion is of the point of view, not the expounder of it. Yeah, now, this I agree with. I find it fun to have player skill tested, too, but I don't agree that "20 questions", "Mastermind" or "What am I thinking now?" are the only (or even best) ways to "test player skill". I prefer, when playing or running "test the player" games, to frame those challenges within the game system and preferably during the actual play at the table rather than in preparation time. This "defines the playing field" somewhat, and allows clear rules of play to be framed - considerations that are not relevant for "story-seeking" or "daydreaming" play. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Legends & Lore: Player vs. Character
Top