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
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
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="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8642327" data-attributes="member: 7026617"><p>I think you're assuming a more interactive process than I've usually seen it to be. There's a degree of advise-and-consent present, but its usually far more top-down than your response implies. It is usually transparent (though honestly, in some cases not all that much--but that's less based on attempt to conceal than simply perception of all concerned that the improvised process is handling an element that isn't very core to what's going on so the GM decides something, and unless the player objects to the process, they do it and move on).</p><p></p><p>The main difference between this and a lot of other approaches, is its always assumed that if it violates the game-process expectations of the player(s) that its legitimate to bring up and debate the matter, rather than it being a sign of "bad play". But how much the table bothers to interact with it varies considerably as to its significance and whether they consider it to seriously damage their ability to be effective in what they're doing. "The table working out how to implement it" usually overstates how much most players will bother. Similarly, while occasionally someone will point out they wouldn't have done X if they'd have known why, there's usually no need; if the change in process is significant, its not exactly a mystery to the GM that this needs to be addressed. The only time the whole group needs to be involved is when it requires a significant roll-back needed, and its often just a case where everyone will chose to just move on.</p><p></p><p>Again, even a group with a heavy gamist preference can have multiple aims at the same time, and they'll color the degree of involvement they care to engage with questions about given on-the-fly rules addition or adjustment.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>When actually engaged with that way, you're correct. But it being an option doesn't mean its always engaged with that way. In particular, in peripheral cases, its usually indistinguishable from GM-as-glue to a neutral observer who's not familiar with the specifics of the game culture.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8642327, member: 7026617"] I think you're assuming a more interactive process than I've usually seen it to be. There's a degree of advise-and-consent present, but its usually far more top-down than your response implies. It is usually transparent (though honestly, in some cases not all that much--but that's less based on attempt to conceal than simply perception of all concerned that the improvised process is handling an element that isn't very core to what's going on so the GM decides something, and unless the player objects to the process, they do it and move on). The main difference between this and a lot of other approaches, is its always assumed that if it violates the game-process expectations of the player(s) that its legitimate to bring up and debate the matter, rather than it being a sign of "bad play". But how much the table bothers to interact with it varies considerably as to its significance and whether they consider it to seriously damage their ability to be effective in what they're doing. "The table working out how to implement it" usually overstates how much most players will bother. Similarly, while occasionally someone will point out they wouldn't have done X if they'd have known why, there's usually no need; if the change in process is significant, its not exactly a mystery to the GM that this needs to be addressed. The only time the whole group needs to be involved is when it requires a significant roll-back needed, and its often just a case where everyone will chose to just move on. Again, even a group with a heavy gamist preference can have multiple aims at the same time, and they'll color the degree of involvement they care to engage with questions about given on-the-fly rules addition or adjustment. When actually engaged with that way, you're correct. But it being an option doesn't mean its always engaged with that way. In particular, in peripheral cases, its usually indistinguishable from GM-as-glue to a neutral observer who's not familiar with the specifics of the game culture. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top