Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8646841" data-attributes="member: 42582">Upthread I said there are a number of reasons someone might follow a rule. People mostly play games because they enjoy them, though that's not the only reason. And they follow the rules because that is what it means to play the game. I don't think most people engage with the appealing character of individual rules.Here's a concrete example: the radius of the Fireball spell, in classic D&D, is 20'. This is inherited from Chainmail. Had the radius been 15', or 30', I think the rule would have been just as appealing.I think that many people would have found the a rule that gave 3E D&D fighters better Will saves more appealing than the actual rules. But they seem nevertheless to have used the printed rule, because that was the rule in the game.My impression from ENworld threads is that many people use the 5e rule for tridents vis-a-vis spears although they don't find it appealing.To reiterate, people typically follow the rules of a game because (i) the rules help constitute the game, and (ii) they enjoy the game. I don't think individual rules are typically objects of desire or enjoyment in and of themselves.How different? In what ways? This stuff isn't ineffable, or not subject to rational inquiry or discussion.I've successfully had many conversations with other posters about approaches to 4e D&D, to Classic Traveller, to Torchbearer, among other systems. To give a more concrete example, I've discussed with [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] our different approaches to wilderness/geography skill challenges in 4e, reflecting our different degrees of enthusiasm for the "man vs nature" genre and our different degrees of knowledge about climbing, orienteering etc. The fact that we have different preferences, and would adjudicate particular consequences differently, doesn't mean we're playing different games. Any more than I'm playing a different game of backgammon from you because I would choose a different move from yours given the same dice roll and the same position of the pieces.What I am trying to convey, I guess, is that it is utterly opaque to me what you think follows, about the nature of RPGing and the pursuit of various creative agendas, that players or GMs would make different choices in much the same circumstances.As Harper uses it, and as [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] used it: to mean the making of a decision relatively free of constraint. "Let it be done" - a decree that is not apt to be contradicted.Given that [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] is referring to a particular sort of accountability - the sort of accountability that obtains in (say) Burning Wheel scene-framing - it's not sufficient to assert that this can be part of 5e play. How would it work? How does the scene-framing work? How are situations resolved? In the example of play that I posted upthread, the scene has been framed by the GM independently of anything the players bring to the table via their PCs. The one action declaration that is resolved mechanically has no stakes, and the player does not even get told if they succeeded or failed. Sure. The process doesn't involve stakes. The process involves task resolution, not conflict resolution.Prince Valiant doesn't have an example of play in the strict sense, but it has a one-page mini-scenario with a rules primer interleaved. This is uncomplicated too. The first use of the rules it suggests is to resolve the PC knights jockeying for precedence. From this, and other examples, we can see a difference between 5e D&D and Prince Valiant: Prince Valiant doesn't depend on GM-as-glue. (I've frequently posted that there are some scenarios in the Episode Book that depart from this - the stand-out in this respect being Mark Rein-Hagen's. Thus they're not playable as written.)If you are asserting that 5e D&D routinely does resolve situations (particularly non-combat situations) without the need for GM decision-making of the sort Harper has in mind, Baker has in mind in what I posted upthread (about task vs conflict resolution), that [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] has in mind, that I have in mind, it would be helpful (i) to make that clear, and (ii) to provide examples and/or explanation of what you have in mind.</blockquote>

Verification