Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants
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: 8299307" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I'm going to leave the long rest stuff alone, except to say this (which I think is going to end up being a little longer than I planned):</p><p></p><p>I regard "adventuring day" balance as an almost inevitable recipe for railroading, because it demands - in its very definition! - that multiple encounters must take place in order to establish balance. And this requires the GM to force those encounters.</p><p></p><p>Now, one might say, wasn't I in another recent thread recently talking about GM control over pacing in 4e D&D? Yes I was, but that is different in two respects: (i) it's about pacing, not balance, and so the GM losing control of the reins won't lead to any fundamental breakage in the game; (ii) precisely because 4e is balanced over the encounter, the players have no "skilled play" stake in how the GM manages that pacing. If the players have all been hording their dailies and surges and then the GM declares nothing more happens until we rest, no one in particular has been hosed, and at worst we get a sort of table-wide let down feeling that lets the GM know to manage the pacing and the player expectations better next time.</p><p></p><p>Whereas in the 5e model, precisely because of how it is fundamental to intraparty balance, a GM has to be managing this the whole time.</p><p></p><p>Now there is an exception: the GM doesn't always force encounters but only threatens to do so, such that the players have to play as if their will 6 to 8 of them even if there end up not being that many. But this is nearly as sucky as the railroad approach, because (a) for the threat to be credible the GM has to actually sometimes follow through, which takes us back to the railroad, and (b) when the GM doesn't follow through then we have encounters where the players don't cut loose, and as it turns out this is for no good reason, and so the upshot of the balance rules is to produce a play experience where the most interesting mechanical features of the PCs don't actually see play.</p><p></p><p>It's approach to balancing is probably the number one reason why I have zero interest in playing 5e D&D. (Even less, I think, than playing classic D&D.)</p><p></p><p></p><p>I think this is all true.</p><p></p><p>But there are different ways of establishing the feedback loop. 4e D&D does it, for combat, very significantly on the player side (as per your example of Valiant Strike). In this sense 4e D&D combat requires a type of technical skill, or at least attention to detail, that is not required in (say) Cthulhu Dark. I would assert that it can still be done with a good degree of author stance, but that might be a contingent fact about me (ie I think I'm pretty good at reading a 4e PC sheet and power list and identifying what that tells me about who I (as the PC) am and what I can and will do). If I read my sheet properly, then when I make a decision as a paladin player <em>because I'm valiant</em> the game will support me.</p><p></p><p>But when - as sometimes I have to, I think, in 4e combat - I look at the sheet and think <em>I need to do this now</em> and then I retrofit on my PC's motivation - ie classic author stance! - then my character still plays the same. And so toggling between actor and author stance produces no "gaps" or incoherence in the fiction. This is part of the strength of 4e's design (in my view) and part of what supports a feedback loop of the sort you describe. The player never has to just say "Bugger it, I'm giving up on my characterisation to save the party from this fiasco" and nor does s/he have to say "OK, everyone, I'm playing my character as I conceive it and now the GM has to use force to bail us out."</p><p></p><p>Now what about Burning Wheel? It doesn't have character powers in the 4e D&D sense - the closest it comes is that certain abilities (Sorcery and Faith are the main ones) enable access to a finite (and typically fairly low) number of discrete effects if a successful check is made. So my guy being <em>valiant </em>isn't about having a power that will underpin and give expression to that; it's about having a Belief about that, which will produce downstream payoff in the form of fate points.</p><p></p><p>So what keeps me "safe" in the meantime, as I declare my valiant actions, is primarily happening on the GM side, with the rules around failures and consequence narration. This is very different from the 4e model of combat (though quite close to the 4e skill challenge model); and is integral to generating the feedback loop.</p><p></p><p>Prince Valiant is much closer to BW than 4e D&D combat in nearly all respects, including this one; and compared to BW it is even less likely to generate consequences that dramatically impede further action declarations (especially from combat); and again this is pretty key to generating the feedback loop whereby players will have their PCs pursue the deeds of errantry that are meant to be central to play.</p><p></p><p>I think these differences in BW and Prince Valiant are highly relevant to my assertion that these don't have to be played with an eye on technically skilful play in the same way as some other systems.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8299307, member: 42582"] I'm going to leave the long rest stuff alone, except to say this (which I think is going to end up being a little longer than I planned): I regard "adventuring day" balance as an almost inevitable recipe for railroading, because it demands - in its very definition! - that multiple encounters must take place in order to establish balance. And this requires the GM to force those encounters. Now, one might say, wasn't I in another recent thread recently talking about GM control over pacing in 4e D&D? Yes I was, but that is different in two respects: (i) it's about pacing, not balance, and so the GM losing control of the reins won't lead to any fundamental breakage in the game; (ii) precisely because 4e is balanced over the encounter, the players have no "skilled play" stake in how the GM manages that pacing. If the players have all been hording their dailies and surges and then the GM declares nothing more happens until we rest, no one in particular has been hosed, and at worst we get a sort of table-wide let down feeling that lets the GM know to manage the pacing and the player expectations better next time. Whereas in the 5e model, precisely because of how it is fundamental to intraparty balance, a GM has to be managing this the whole time. Now there is an exception: the GM doesn't always force encounters but only threatens to do so, such that the players have to play as if their will 6 to 8 of them even if there end up not being that many. But this is nearly as sucky as the railroad approach, because (a) for the threat to be credible the GM has to actually sometimes follow through, which takes us back to the railroad, and (b) when the GM doesn't follow through then we have encounters where the players don't cut loose, and as it turns out this is for no good reason, and so the upshot of the balance rules is to produce a play experience where the most interesting mechanical features of the PCs don't actually see play. It's approach to balancing is probably the number one reason why I have zero interest in playing 5e D&D. (Even less, I think, than playing classic D&D.) I think this is all true. But there are different ways of establishing the feedback loop. 4e D&D does it, for combat, very significantly on the player side (as per your example of Valiant Strike). In this sense 4e D&D combat requires a type of technical skill, or at least attention to detail, that is not required in (say) Cthulhu Dark. I would assert that it can still be done with a good degree of author stance, but that might be a contingent fact about me (ie I think I'm pretty good at reading a 4e PC sheet and power list and identifying what that tells me about who I (as the PC) am and what I can and will do). If I read my sheet properly, then when I make a decision as a paladin player [i]because I'm valiant[/i] the game will support me. But when - as sometimes I have to, I think, in 4e combat - I look at the sheet and think [I]I need to do this now[/I] and then I retrofit on my PC's motivation - ie classic author stance! - then my character still plays the same. And so toggling between actor and author stance produces no "gaps" or incoherence in the fiction. This is part of the strength of 4e's design (in my view) and part of what supports a feedback loop of the sort you describe. The player never has to just say "Bugger it, I'm giving up on my characterisation to save the party from this fiasco" and nor does s/he have to say "OK, everyone, I'm playing my character as I conceive it and now the GM has to use force to bail us out." Now what about Burning Wheel? It doesn't have character powers in the 4e D&D sense - the closest it comes is that certain abilities (Sorcery and Faith are the main ones) enable access to a finite (and typically fairly low) number of discrete effects if a successful check is made. So my guy being [I]valiant [/I]isn't about having a power that will underpin and give expression to that; it's about having a Belief about that, which will produce downstream payoff in the form of fate points. So what keeps me "safe" in the meantime, as I declare my valiant actions, is primarily happening on the GM side, with the rules around failures and consequence narration. This is very different from the 4e model of combat (though quite close to the 4e skill challenge model); and is integral to generating the feedback loop. Prince Valiant is much closer to BW than 4e D&D combat in nearly all respects, including this one; and compared to BW it is even less likely to generate consequences that dramatically impede further action declarations (especially from combat); and again this is pretty key to generating the feedback loop whereby players will have their PCs pursue the deeds of errantry that are meant to be central to play. I think these differences in BW and Prince Valiant are highly relevant to my assertion that these don't have to be played with an eye on technically skilful play in the same way as some other systems. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Story Now, Skilled Play, and Elephants
Top