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
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game
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="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8505385" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>I would respond that in fact I think the first process is more in line with the Czege Principle, though neither of them is exactly violating it. Still, there's a sense in which, if the person who is taking the risk is also setting the parameters for how it will be adjudicated, that might not be cool (your comment about 'trusting the player' IMHO is rooted in exactly this). I'm not categorically opposed to any possible system where the player picks the mechanics to use. I have, however, found that the GM might be in a stronger position to do so in many cases. Anyway, HoML at least has way for the player to effectively say "no no, I think I'd prefer things like THIS!" which is to invoke the use of a practice. Also you can invoke Fate. Neither of these is guaranteed to be appropriate to every possible situation though. You might not have available positive fate, or you might not be able to come up with a character attribute to invoke it on. You may well not have a practice that you can fictionally justify using in the situation, etc. Barring those possibilities, the character must go with his original approach.</p><p></p><p>Right, that was my other concern, its only a tiny step to eliding the fiction entirely when stating it and linking it to mechanics are effectively all one thing. Handing the mapping off to the GM is mainly meant to make it harder for this to happen (though it isn't by itself a very strong guarantee as we've seen).</p><p></p><p>Well, I guess you could look at it like player empowerment, but I think it is a weak sort compared with things like having the players decide many of the key points about how the fiction is set up to start with. I mean, if the player wanted zombies, and they got zombies, they probably don't need to also decide which knack was in the scope of the "burn zombies with fire" fictional move. I mean, its probably already pretty obvious. If not I think maybe someone dropped the ball on developing this story! (it happens).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8505385, member: 82106"] I would respond that in fact I think the first process is more in line with the Czege Principle, though neither of them is exactly violating it. Still, there's a sense in which, if the person who is taking the risk is also setting the parameters for how it will be adjudicated, that might not be cool (your comment about 'trusting the player' IMHO is rooted in exactly this). I'm not categorically opposed to any possible system where the player picks the mechanics to use. I have, however, found that the GM might be in a stronger position to do so in many cases. Anyway, HoML at least has way for the player to effectively say "no no, I think I'd prefer things like THIS!" which is to invoke the use of a practice. Also you can invoke Fate. Neither of these is guaranteed to be appropriate to every possible situation though. You might not have available positive fate, or you might not be able to come up with a character attribute to invoke it on. You may well not have a practice that you can fictionally justify using in the situation, etc. Barring those possibilities, the character must go with his original approach. Right, that was my other concern, its only a tiny step to eliding the fiction entirely when stating it and linking it to mechanics are effectively all one thing. Handing the mapping off to the GM is mainly meant to make it harder for this to happen (though it isn't by itself a very strong guarantee as we've seen). Well, I guess you could look at it like player empowerment, but I think it is a weak sort compared with things like having the players decide many of the key points about how the fiction is set up to start with. I mean, if the player wanted zombies, and they got zombies, they probably don't need to also decide which knack was in the scope of the "burn zombies with fire" fictional move. I mean, its probably already pretty obvious. If not I think maybe someone dropped the ball on developing this story! (it happens). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Roleplaying in D&D 5E: It’s How You Play the Game
Top