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
Role playing and wargaming
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6962726" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Well, I've got two horses in this race:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">(1) There are, and have for a long time, been different ways of approaching D&D. And different texts put different approaches front-and-centre. Pages 107-9 of Gygax's PHB, plus the examples of play and advice in his DMG, promote a very different way of playing D&D from that which a module like Dead Gods offers. To the extent that the OP is trying to make this point, I agree with it.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">(2) The 2nd ed AD&D conception of "roleplaying" - my guy has bad table manners; my guy wears a felt hat and likes fish; etc - is not the only conception of roleplaying going. And the 2nd ed AD&D conception of mechanics - that we use them (sort of, with a bit of fudging) for combat and climbing, but don't need them for the <em>important</em> stuff like talking to NPCs - is not the only way of thinking about mechanics. (Going even further - I would say that 2nd ed AD&D, by preserving most of Gygax's mechanics but promoting a completely different approach to the game, creates a type of fetishism around what RPG mechanics are for, and should be, that is still a burden on good RPG design.)</p><p></p><p>As I think I posted upthread, my own preferred approach to RPGing is neither Gygaxian nor 2nd ed AD&D. But I personally see it as <em>closer</em> to Gygaxian, because it takes the game seriously as a game - something driven by player action declarations made against the backdrop of the fictional situation the GM has presented, and in which the outcome of those action declarations tells us what happens next, and determines whether the players "win" or "lose".</p><p></p><p>To give just a simple example: if your claim about your character is that s/he is <em>brave</em>, then show me that in mechanical terms. Show me how s/he is resistant to fear. Show me how her morale is unbreakable. If you show me your low-hp thief who has no serious WIS/will save/defence and will fall unconscious at the first turn of the wheel on the rack, I can see how your character might be reckless or foolhardy, but I'm not seeing anything that shows me s/he is <em>brave</em>.</p><p></p><p>(4e delivers in this respect - you can build your PC to be brave, picking some appropriate feat or power or paragon path or whatever. 5e delivers mostly via a completely different mechanical approach - if your PC is brave, then you can earn inspiration, which you can spend to buff your save or your death saving throw or whatever is appropriate.)</p><p></p><p>EDIT: A longer, but much better, exposition of these sorts of ideas is <a href="https://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/gamesatplay.html" target="_blank">Christopher Kubasik's "interactive toolkit" essay</a>, especially part 3 where he distinguishes <em>character</em> from (mere) <em>characterisation</em>.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6962726, member: 42582"] Well, I've got two horses in this race: [indent](1) There are, and have for a long time, been different ways of approaching D&D. And different texts put different approaches front-and-centre. Pages 107-9 of Gygax's PHB, plus the examples of play and advice in his DMG, promote a very different way of playing D&D from that which a module like Dead Gods offers. To the extent that the OP is trying to make this point, I agree with it. (2) The 2nd ed AD&D conception of "roleplaying" - my guy has bad table manners; my guy wears a felt hat and likes fish; etc - is not the only conception of roleplaying going. And the 2nd ed AD&D conception of mechanics - that we use them (sort of, with a bit of fudging) for combat and climbing, but don't need them for the [I]important[/I] stuff like talking to NPCs - is not the only way of thinking about mechanics. (Going even further - I would say that 2nd ed AD&D, by preserving most of Gygax's mechanics but promoting a completely different approach to the game, creates a type of fetishism around what RPG mechanics are for, and should be, that is still a burden on good RPG design.)[/indent] As I think I posted upthread, my own preferred approach to RPGing is neither Gygaxian nor 2nd ed AD&D. But I personally see it as [I]closer[/I] to Gygaxian, because it takes the game seriously as a game - something driven by player action declarations made against the backdrop of the fictional situation the GM has presented, and in which the outcome of those action declarations tells us what happens next, and determines whether the players "win" or "lose". To give just a simple example: if your claim about your character is that s/he is [I]brave[/I], then show me that in mechanical terms. Show me how s/he is resistant to fear. Show me how her morale is unbreakable. If you show me your low-hp thief who has no serious WIS/will save/defence and will fall unconscious at the first turn of the wheel on the rack, I can see how your character might be reckless or foolhardy, but I'm not seeing anything that shows me s/he is [I]brave[/I]. (4e delivers in this respect - you can build your PC to be brave, picking some appropriate feat or power or paragon path or whatever. 5e delivers mostly via a completely different mechanical approach - if your PC is brave, then you can earn inspiration, which you can spend to buff your save or your death saving throw or whatever is appropriate.) EDIT: A longer, but much better, exposition of these sorts of ideas is [url=https://www.rpg.net/oracle/essays/gamesatplay.html]Christopher Kubasik's "interactive toolkit" essay[/url], especially part 3 where he distinguishes [I]character[/I] from (mere) [I]characterisation[/I]. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Role playing and wargaming
Top