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
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 7643259" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>My tentative suggestion (tentative because I'm a random commentator on a message board, not an observer of let alone a participant in your game) would be to look for ways to connect <em>in-game narrative loss</em> (or success) to <em>the mechanical scope of action</em>. By chance earlier today I was re-reading bits of a thread from late last year and saw the following post that I made to which you responded:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px"></p><p></p><p>I think that 5e probably makes it fairly hard to change characters as a result of choices. But I don't think it makes it hard to change the mechanical scope of action as a result of choices. That just requires centring some aspects of fictional positioning that are perhaps not always centred in 5e play. If the fictional positioning is allowed to "cascade" then you can get quite interesting and perhaps even powerful unfolding of stakes and choices and consequences without needing to introduce new mechanical systems. It probably won't give you PCs with a rich inner life (of the sort that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is looking for) but it may give you PCs who make thematically meaningful choices whose consequences can be seen etched on the surface of the gameworld.</p><p></p><p>In my experience some, even many, GMs, are hesitant to follow the fiction in this way. That is, they tend to set parameters for the mechanical scope of choice independent of the elements of fictional positioning I'm pointing to, and also tend to cabin the consequences of choices rather than allow the fictional positioning to "cascade". Further in my experience, this hesitation seems to have two main causes: (1) a desire for control over what is happening in the fiction (something like the "story advocacy" Campbell has referred to upthread); (2) a fear of what will happen - eg loss of certainty over how to frame challenges and adjudicate actions - if the fiction is allowed to take its own course.</p><p></p><p>If you do not have that sort of hesitation, then I reiterate my tentative suggestion (that little bit less tentatively!). If you do have such hesitation, then a further tentative thought would be that it may be hard to continue in that way and yet achieve the increase in meaningful stakes that I take you to be looking for.</p><p></p><p>None of the above is intended in the form of judgement or prediction or criticism (qv reasons why all comments are tentative). It's a sincere attempt to respond to what you have posted in the context of 5e D&D as best I understand that system.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7643259, member: 42582"] My tentative suggestion (tentative because I'm a random commentator on a message board, not an observer of let alone a participant in your game) would be to look for ways to connect [I]in-game narrative loss[/I] (or success) to [I]the mechanical scope of action[/I]. By chance earlier today I was re-reading bits of a thread from late last year and saw the following post that I made to which you responded: [indent][/indent] I think that 5e probably makes it fairly hard to change characters as a result of choices. But I don't think it makes it hard to change the mechanical scope of action as a result of choices. That just requires centring some aspects of fictional positioning that are perhaps not always centred in 5e play. If the fictional positioning is allowed to "cascade" then you can get quite interesting and perhaps even powerful unfolding of stakes and choices and consequences without needing to introduce new mechanical systems. It probably won't give you PCs with a rich inner life (of the sort that [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] is looking for) but it may give you PCs who make thematically meaningful choices whose consequences can be seen etched on the surface of the gameworld. In my experience some, even many, GMs, are hesitant to follow the fiction in this way. That is, they tend to set parameters for the mechanical scope of choice independent of the elements of fictional positioning I'm pointing to, and also tend to cabin the consequences of choices rather than allow the fictional positioning to "cascade". Further in my experience, this hesitation seems to have two main causes: (1) a desire for control over what is happening in the fiction (something like the "story advocacy" Campbell has referred to upthread); (2) a fear of what will happen - eg loss of certainty over how to frame challenges and adjudicate actions - if the fiction is allowed to take its own course. If you do not have that sort of hesitation, then I reiterate my tentative suggestion (that little bit less tentatively!). If you do have such hesitation, then a further tentative thought would be that it may be hard to continue in that way and yet achieve the increase in meaningful stakes that I take you to be looking for. None of the above is intended in the form of judgement or prediction or criticism (qv reasons why all comments are tentative). It's a sincere attempt to respond to what you have posted in the context of 5e D&D as best I understand that system. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top