Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7006862" data-attributes="member: 996">Acknowledged, and probably why I'm having so much trouble with it.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />But, but... I only just now crawled out of it and am trying to scrape it off my shoes....&nbsp; I am deeply sick of statements in that form, BTW...Hate Forge-isms or hate Sim?&nbsp; Well, yeah, OK.&nbsp; Both.&nbsp; Sorta.&nbsp; I don't like the way they're used to polarize the hobby into false dichotomies (or trichotomies, is that a thing?) and cut down perfectly good games and styles of gaming.&nbsp; But, y'know, aside from that...Which sounds like sandboxing and status-quo encounter design, to me.&nbsp; Is there really some other point to it, or is it just (yet another) euphemism? Back in the day, there was a 'realism' debate.&nbsp; Fast-forward decades, and I've heard GNS, process-sim, verisimilitude, &amp; immersion thrown around - but they're all just making the same points as the 'realism' debate decades earlier, and making them just as unconvincingly.Realism, in whatever guise, is a component of an RPG experience.&nbsp; Not the be-all and end-all of the experience, nor even an indispensable foundation of it.&nbsp; Same with the remaining G &amp; N of GNS.&nbsp; Same with the role vs roll debate.&nbsp; Same with everything that someone wants to point to as the all-important whatever that makes game X or edition n superior or terribad.&nbsp; Which would seem to subsume 'tailored' encounter design, and include storytelling styles. They're all imaginary, so using 'objective' borders on the absurd.&nbsp; Aside from that, I guess I'm seeing your point - that 5e is hardwired for status-quo/sandbox play (or something slightly more comprehensive that subsumes both, the subtly of the distinction escaping me).&nbsp; I must disagree with that point, completely.&nbsp; I don't find 5e hardwired for that - nor at all, really.&nbsp; By the same token, I don't see how it couldn't easily be used that way if you wanted to.&nbsp; In the kernel of the resolution system, it'd just be a matter of when you call for a roll and how you set the DC, which is always up to the DM.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7006862, member: 996"] Acknowledged, and probably why I'm having so much trouble with it. :( But, but... I only just now crawled out of it and am trying to scrape it off my shoes.... I am deeply sick of statements in that form, BTW... Hate Forge-isms or hate Sim? Well, yeah, OK. Both. Sorta. I don't like the way they're used to polarize the hobby into false dichotomies (or trichotomies, is that a thing?) and cut down perfectly good games and styles of gaming. But, y'know, aside from that... Which sounds like sandboxing and status-quo encounter design, to me. Is there really some other point to it, or is it just (yet another) euphemism? Back in the day, there was a 'realism' debate. Fast-forward decades, and I've heard GNS, process-sim, verisimilitude, & immersion thrown around - but they're all just making the same points as the 'realism' debate decades earlier, and making them just as unconvincingly. Realism, in whatever guise, is a component of an RPG experience. Not the be-all and end-all of the experience, nor even an indispensable foundation of it. Same with the remaining G & N of GNS. Same with the role vs roll debate. Same with everything that someone wants to point to as the all-important whatever that makes game X or edition n superior or terribad. Which would seem to subsume 'tailored' encounter design, and include storytelling styles. They're all imaginary, so using 'objective' borders on the absurd. Aside from that, I guess I'm seeing your point - that 5e is hardwired for status-quo/sandbox play (or something slightly more comprehensive that subsumes both, the subtly of the distinction escaping me). I must disagree with that point, completely. I don't find 5e hardwired for that - nor at all, really. By the same token, I don't see how it couldn't easily be used that way if you wanted to. In the kernel of the resolution system, it'd just be a matter of when you call for a roll and how you set the DC, which is always up to the DM. [/QUOTE]

Verification