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
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="clearstream" data-source="post: 8647974" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>[USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] it feels to some extent like there is a conflation of SN concerns with all other doubts. Again, to be really clear, I am not discussing SN play. I am talking about DM constraints. I do not describe 5e resolution as conflict-resolution, but as consequences-resolution. The conflicts are resolved, or not, in view of player intents that are not strongly represented in the mechanics (maybe only in TIBFs, alignment, inspiration.)</p><p></p><p>It's then up to each group how they play it. One group might conduct a kind of objective-free, exploratory play (some sort of setting-tourism). Another might conduct a railroad (characters may have presumed objectives, but players don't get to say what those are). A third still might play as I advocate, where we reached this safe because it matters to the players' objectives.</p><p></p><p>I can imagine scenarios where a random empty safe could be found. Say the characters are on a spree, knocking over banks. The safe contents are not really at stake. Going in, what players have most on their minds is the time taken to get in and out. That's the consequence we're then resolving. I think a principled, constrained GM call if the check fails (assuming no <em>Knock</em> spell) might be something like this: system's say is a failed roll can be success-with-complication, stakes declared up front is guards turn up, and that turns out to not be avoided. That's the vanilla version, because there also can be fair and constraining stakes that are known up front, but not as it happens by the players... or that are overlooked by them.</p><p></p><p>If one doesn't play a lot of 5e, it's easy to miss something that's actually there in plain sight. The rule that you only call for a roll when there are meaningful consequences means that you must decide on those consequences <em>before</em> the roll. It's not - fail the roll and make whatever up - it's what are we rolling for?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8647974, member: 71699"] [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] it feels to some extent like there is a conflation of SN concerns with all other doubts. Again, to be really clear, I am not discussing SN play. I am talking about DM constraints. I do not describe 5e resolution as conflict-resolution, but as consequences-resolution. The conflicts are resolved, or not, in view of player intents that are not strongly represented in the mechanics (maybe only in TIBFs, alignment, inspiration.) It's then up to each group how they play it. One group might conduct a kind of objective-free, exploratory play (some sort of setting-tourism). Another might conduct a railroad (characters may have presumed objectives, but players don't get to say what those are). A third still might play as I advocate, where we reached this safe because it matters to the players' objectives. I can imagine scenarios where a random empty safe could be found. Say the characters are on a spree, knocking over banks. The safe contents are not really at stake. Going in, what players have most on their minds is the time taken to get in and out. That's the consequence we're then resolving. I think a principled, constrained GM call if the check fails (assuming no [I]Knock[/I] spell) might be something like this: system's say is a failed roll can be success-with-complication, stakes declared up front is guards turn up, and that turns out to not be avoided. That's the vanilla version, because there also can be fair and constraining stakes that are known up front, but not as it happens by the players... or that are overlooked by them. If one doesn't play a lot of 5e, it's easy to miss something that's actually there in plain sight. The rule that you only call for a roll when there are meaningful consequences means that you must decide on those consequences [I]before[/I] the roll. It's not - fail the roll and make whatever up - it's what are we rolling for? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Supposing D&D is gamist, what does that mean?
Top