Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8008336" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, okay, but I was asking what your experience is.  This is because there's some pretty fundamental conceptual differences and your arguments seem to indicate you don't have a lot of experience with the other set.  Not because we're disagreeing, but because the nature of those disagreements would be rather different if you did have experience with the fundamental conceptual differences.  It's not winging a D&D session, which I will agree with you is a good way to end up with a bad experience.  This is because D&D doesn't support no-myth play with it's mechanics, instead using a GM-decides core resolution mechanic.  The GM decides if dice are needed, and what checks are needed, and what DCs are needed, and what resolution narration is needed, etc.  It's a GM-decides game.  Nothing wrong with that, I still run and play 5e primarily, so I clearly have no issue with that.However, a no-myth game in a system designed to handle it is not a GM-decides game.  The GM is very limited in authority to being able to frame scenes.  After that, the GM's authorities are really in choosing to challenge a player action declaration or not.  If not, it works the way the player wants.  If the GM challenges, the game mechanic is used to determine who gets to determine the parameters of the narration of the outcome.  On a PC success, the player gets to define the narration to be achieving the intent of their action.  On a failure, the GM gets to narrate an outcome, usually to the detriment of the player's intent.  That's a pretty big difference in conception of how these games work.  Firstly, it should be obvious that the GM cannot actually prep for this style of game except very loosely, and then, if play goes in a different direction, must abandon such prep.  This is because the GM has no authority to enforce any outcome, only challenge, which is a fixed mechanic the GM can't modify outside of the already established fiction.  In other words, the GM doesn't set the DC, it's fixed, but may, depending on the fictional state, be able to impose a penalty that follows the current fiction state.  No authority to enforce an outcome means that prep is useless.  This puts a lot more pressure and expectation on the players, because they have to drive the fiction in ways D&D players do not.So, unless you have experience in a well-run game like this, we're talking past each other.  And by well-run, I don't mean a superb GM, I mean just a competent one.  Superb GMs in this style are an absolute joy, but then that's true of pretty much any style.What I've been discussing as adjudication in 5e in this thread is informed by the possibilities that no-myth style games can afford and stealing the bits that can actually work in 5e.  One of those is to allow PCs to try things that are grounded in the established fiction and are genre appropriate and test that with the mechanics (which are still largely GM-decides because you set the DC and ability check needed rather than the fixed mechanic in no-myth style games).  You have to hold things not established in play as fluid because what the PCs try might conflict with your prep that you haven't yet introduced, and that may mean you need to abandon that and go with what play presents.  I'll put one of my social encounters up against anyone's, and I don't think you could claim one has more verisimilitude than the other.  I'm only claiming parity, not superiority.</blockquote>

Verification