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: 8440575" data-attributes="member: 16814">Nope.  I mean, I guess you can just dismiss everything and say something like this, but I play 5e.  I love 5e.  I can absolutely describe how I run 5e, and it doesn't result in different outcomes.  If I'm running a Wizard's AP, like I did with STK, then I'm very much doing the work to read the adventure and use the established backstory (mostly secret and discovered through play) to determine the possible outcomes of player actions first and foremost.  If there's something that's unclear, like say a player declared an action who's result is not clear from the backstory or the backstory doesn't provide a clear direction on which system mechanic to use, I extrapolate as best as I can within the genre tropes established (these differ by adventure), but always to make sure I do not invalidate the backstory.  Now, as it happens, I ended up very much disliking the backstory as the adventure went on, so I made changes, but I still did this at the prep/backstory level and ran the game the same way.If I'm running something I've come up with myself, like my recent Sigil campaign, then I choose what's important to the game at the start and make that clear.  In this game, I still created backstory and it was still the primary metric by which adjudication occurred, but I tailored it to what the players did, and ran segments of the game as skill challenges like 4e -- which were situation framed with let it ride and focused on PC dramatic needs.  These segments gave direction to the play and prompted me to prep various follow-on segments.  In addition, I had a number of independently prepped "jobs" that could be picked up and run for coin and/or other treasure.  There was also a very loose meta-plot regarding an artifact, but it's directions were primarily influenced by the skill challenge segments rather than planned out for me.  Essentially, I used some situation-framed tech like skill challenges to generate prompts for me to prep more Classic/Trad adventures.   Ultimately, though, outside of the skill challenges, I was still very much in backstory-first framing and using backstory as the primary means of adjudication -- it either answered questions or directed what system tool was needed to resolve the situation.  Since I was using the skill challenges to handle player prompts for content, this worked out okay as a hybrid system.In the game I'm playing in, another AP (Rime of the Frostmaiden), the primary resolution gauge is, again, the backstory.  Essentially, we only are making checks when the backstory suggests them (and the results provided) or in combat challenges.  If the backstory prevents something, it is prevented.  An example is one location has magical braziers of fire that regenerate denizens of the area and the backstory says they can only be disabled through dispel magic.  The GM ruled that all other attempts we made failed because they were not dispel magic.  This is backstory as primary at it's strongest.It's not hard to analyze play.  It does require being a bit blunt and unromantic about what's going on.  I've had fun in every example I list here, although my Sigil game was the most entertaining for me and the AP I'm playing in the least (I'm playing for friends and enjoying the game for what it is, not what I want it to be).  I can absolutely get real about how I'm doing things and considering my play.  I'll gladly answer questions about it.  I don't care if you think you don't like it.  It is what it is, and what I'm doing is not far at all, if at all, from mainstream play.  I've read enough of that and seen it and played it that I can absolutely say my largest departure from the mainstream in the above was the use of skill challenges as situation-framed devices.</blockquote>

Verification