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="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9717583" data-attributes="member: 6690965"><p>I wanted to jump back to this point, because I think it's where a significant element was moved outside the thing under question. The whole point about constraints on what outcomes are possible is that it allows the player to have preferences and exert themselves toward achieving them. One of the underlying goals of the whole design is to allow players freedom to try and achieve specific outcomes by leveraging their decisions. It's why I keep talking about "immersion" as moving that player state as close as possible to the character decision-making state.</p><p></p><p>It's not incidental that a player can try and string a series of actions together to get a specific outcome, and is unconstrained in how they make their choices, it's the whole point. That is a design feature, and not to include that, to set additional constraints on what the player is allowed to want or what their goal must be action to action, is to be lacking that. Once you require the player to respect the fiction in this nebulous way, instead of offloading that task to the mechanics such that their actions must fall within those norms, you're stripping away their ability to try and make the best possible choices. The point is to move the burden of avoiding a "corrupt" answer as you put it, outside the realm of player decision making in the first place, thus that whatever inputs a player provides can be honest attempts to bring the game to their desired state.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9717583, member: 6690965"] I wanted to jump back to this point, because I think it's where a significant element was moved outside the thing under question. The whole point about constraints on what outcomes are possible is that it allows the player to have preferences and exert themselves toward achieving them. One of the underlying goals of the whole design is to allow players freedom to try and achieve specific outcomes by leveraging their decisions. It's why I keep talking about "immersion" as moving that player state as close as possible to the character decision-making state. It's not incidental that a player can try and string a series of actions together to get a specific outcome, and is unconstrained in how they make their choices, it's the whole point. That is a design feature, and not to include that, to set additional constraints on what the player is allowed to want or what their goal must be action to action, is to be lacking that. Once you require the player to respect the fiction in this nebulous way, instead of offloading that task to the mechanics such that their actions must fall within those norms, you're stripping away their ability to try and make the best possible choices. The point is to move the burden of avoiding a "corrupt" answer as you put it, outside the realm of player decision making in the first place, thus that whatever inputs a player provides can be honest attempts to bring the game to their desired state. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.
Top