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
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9717576" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>Yes. This is one of the reasons why I don't have a particularly positive opinion of the typical way the "traditional GM" role is presented. Because that's exactly what it looks like to me. Player input is irrelevant outside of coloring within the established lines. You get to decide if your roses are red or white or yellow or maybe green if you're feeling <em>adventurous</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Sure. I also don't really consider it to be a <em>game</em> anymore, so there are no mechanics.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Not really. By having taken it to such an extreme, you have removed it from the space of games and firmly planted it in the space of stories.</p><p></p><p></p><p>Well....as noted, it can't. Because I don't think the above <em>is</em> a game anymore.</p><p></p><p>For something to be a game, as opposed to a story (no choices, you just experience it) or a puzzle, you need:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Multiple (2+) genuinely distinct choices, which potentially lead toward (local*) victory conditions and loss conditions</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Relevant stakes will be set, and (local) victory or loss conditions will preserve/enhance them or harm/weaken them respectively</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The players are able to make reasonably-informed decisions about which choice to take</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The players can <em>learn</em>, from the consequences of each choice, which choices are better or worse to make in the future, meaning, the consequences that arise from these choices are <em>solely</em> the function of what choice the player made, the information they genuinely could have known (even if they failed to actually seek/discover it), and the rules of the game (including dice randomness)</li> </ul><p></p><p>A campaign which railroads players--visibly or invisibly--<em>dramatically</em> harms these elements, sometimes different ones depending on the specific technique used (e.g. the fourth point is severely harmed by illusionism, while the first point is severely harmed by any form of railroading). It is uncommon to cause <em>so much</em> harm that any given point is completely eliminated outright, but plenty achievable to cause so much harm that the result is only barely a game at all anymore within large chunks of the experience.</p><p></p><p>By these lights, something that goes as far as you have described genuinely exits game territory entirely. It is no longer a game. It is a story being experienced ("witnessed" is the term I've used previously) by the players. The GM has control over a great many things, and thus needs to exercise that control extraordinarily carefully. Changes to the rules or the input information should not happen--ever--during a time when the players are making decisions on the basis of that information, <em>unless</em> the players are given a real, reasonable chance to learn of the change (meaning, as I've said before, no "you must get three nat-20s in a row" BS--this needs to have a fairly good chance of success, if it isn't said outright.) Hence my previous example of the GM eliminating fudging by making their intrusion into the game-space diegetic: it's not a secret manipulation of the game concealed from the players and sustained as a pretense of a consistent world with consistent rules, it's a detectable, understandable, potentially even quantifiable and <em>controllable</em> change, the discovery of a new rule that new choices can regard when they're being made.</p><p></p><p>So...I can't answer the question as you've asked it. The thing you have presented isn't a game, given what I think a game needs to be, so the answer is "whether it achieves diegesis is not relevant to <em>games</em> doing so".</p><p></p><p>*"Local" here because people hate saying you can ever "win" anything at all in D&D, even though that's ridiculous. You can win combats. You can "save the day" and thus successfully complete a "quest". You can acquire the treasure you sought, or clear your name, or whatever. These are local win conditions. They are things that might happen or not happen, where you desire them to happen. Likewise, local failure states abound.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9717576, member: 6790260"] Yes. This is one of the reasons why I don't have a particularly positive opinion of the typical way the "traditional GM" role is presented. Because that's exactly what it looks like to me. Player input is irrelevant outside of coloring within the established lines. You get to decide if your roses are red or white or yellow or maybe green if you're feeling [I]adventurous[/I]. Sure. I also don't really consider it to be a [I]game[/I] anymore, so there are no mechanics. Not really. By having taken it to such an extreme, you have removed it from the space of games and firmly planted it in the space of stories. Well....as noted, it can't. Because I don't think the above [I]is[/I] a game anymore. For something to be a game, as opposed to a story (no choices, you just experience it) or a puzzle, you need: [LIST] [*]Multiple (2+) genuinely distinct choices, which potentially lead toward (local*) victory conditions and loss conditions [*]Relevant stakes will be set, and (local) victory or loss conditions will preserve/enhance them or harm/weaken them respectively [*]The players are able to make reasonably-informed decisions about which choice to take [*]The players can [I]learn[/I], from the consequences of each choice, which choices are better or worse to make in the future, meaning, the consequences that arise from these choices are [I]solely[/I] the function of what choice the player made, the information they genuinely could have known (even if they failed to actually seek/discover it), and the rules of the game (including dice randomness) [/LIST] A campaign which railroads players--visibly or invisibly--[I]dramatically[/I] harms these elements, sometimes different ones depending on the specific technique used (e.g. the fourth point is severely harmed by illusionism, while the first point is severely harmed by any form of railroading). It is uncommon to cause [I]so much[/I] harm that any given point is completely eliminated outright, but plenty achievable to cause so much harm that the result is only barely a game at all anymore within large chunks of the experience. By these lights, something that goes as far as you have described genuinely exits game territory entirely. It is no longer a game. It is a story being experienced ("witnessed" is the term I've used previously) by the players. The GM has control over a great many things, and thus needs to exercise that control extraordinarily carefully. Changes to the rules or the input information should not happen--ever--during a time when the players are making decisions on the basis of that information, [I]unless[/I] the players are given a real, reasonable chance to learn of the change (meaning, as I've said before, no "you must get three nat-20s in a row" BS--this needs to have a fairly good chance of success, if it isn't said outright.) Hence my previous example of the GM eliminating fudging by making their intrusion into the game-space diegetic: it's not a secret manipulation of the game concealed from the players and sustained as a pretense of a consistent world with consistent rules, it's a detectable, understandable, potentially even quantifiable and [I]controllable[/I] change, the discovery of a new rule that new choices can regard when they're being made. So...I can't answer the question as you've asked it. The thing you have presented isn't a game, given what I think a game needs to be, so the answer is "whether it achieves diegesis is not relevant to [I]games[/I] doing so". *"Local" here because people hate saying you can ever "win" anything at all in D&D, even though that's ridiculous. You can win combats. You can "save the day" and thus successfully complete a "quest". You can acquire the treasure you sought, or clear your name, or whatever. These are local win conditions. They are things that might happen or not happen, where you desire them to happen. Likewise, local failure states abound. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
Top