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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8440560" data-attributes="member: 7016699">There are principles, yes, but I'm not so sure they're explicitly called out as such, and there seems to me to be a lot more wiggle-room than you seem to see.It's a known thing that they specifically wanted to allow for different tables to play differently. That heterogeneity might make analysis difficult--even fraught--but I don't think it's bad.That phrase "lead storyteller" does have some problems, but it can also be interpreted in multiple ways.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">"Boss" at the table. Decides where things go, what happens, shapes the narrative to lead to the next prepped scene. This sounds an awful lot like someone running a published AP-style adventure, working to keep it "on track."</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">"Clockmaker Gawd." Makes the world, sets things in motion. Drops the players in a place where there are things for them to find and/or do nearby, expects them to go find and/or do them. This sounds very sandboxy to me (and might in fact be a less-than-generous description of the playstyle, which has never been my favorite).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">"Scenarist." Makes at least something like a setting. Places the characters into a situation where things are happening right now and where there is at least something like an action-call. Continues to place situations in front of them, with the idea of engaging the characters and/or players. Which situations the characters and/or players engage with, and in what order, and how, is entirely up to them; and they might not succeed. This is more or less how I run my games.</li> </ol>I think the discretion is intended to be more about making the game enjoyable for the participants, with some acknowledgment that edge cases will arise and an explicit empowerment of DMs to handle those. I'm not convinced that, for instance, the DM is intended to have authority to narrate success out of the story--there does seem to be a difference of opinion on that.This is ... conventional D&D, I think. Back to the 70s, at least.There is flexibility here, I think, but it'd need to be agreed to around the table. Also, how deadly the perils are will likely vary among tables.I think in that case, the people around the table want the story that emerges to be about hacking and slashing, to the extent they care about that at all.I don't entirely disagree that 5E could and should have done more to help DMs ... work out what "the fun" is for their tables and figure out how to get to it. I don't particularly agree that it's a problem for a game that intended to be as big-tent as D&D is (leaving aside whether it should be, or should want to be) to leave it to a given table to figure out what they want from the game. I've been able to work it out at tables compost half of strangers, twice, so it's not impossible.We've been through that, I think. I don't think there is a conflict--I think a table that sets out to do Skilled Play makes the story about that. But I'm not precious about where I think things should go, or how situations should resolve.I don't disagree there are ... things in 5E that tie it to earlier editions--particularly the AD&D you mention. As someone who played a lot of that, and played and DMed a lot of 3.x, and skipped 4E (because no one I gamed with played it or advocated for it) the game ... fit well with my previous experience. I do (I'm sure, to no one's surprise) disagree that the game is so explicitly in service to GM Story Hour as you seem to think it is; I'm sure neither of us is likely to convince the other, though, and I'm not interested in that particular strife.</blockquote>

Verification