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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 4809271" data-attributes="member: 2067">We're talking about the fundamental unit of drama and tension: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict" target="_blank">Conflict</a>. So more in the "PC's meet with people that have a distinct authority over...things (that) are objectives of the PC's" camp. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The PC's objective should be fairly clear at most times. The whole "what do you do?" question that is at the center of DMing is answered by the player stating how their character peruses their objective.When something stands in the way of the PC achieving that, that's where rules come into play.They come into play mostly because DM judgment calls aren't a very satisfying method for conflict resolution, especially when that's the main method used over the course of multiple conflicts. The D&D game right now (and historically) has been pretty good at one kind of conflict resolution: the armed kind; the resolution of a violent conflict in the context of heroic fantasy. This is great, but we can't leave every other type of conflict up to DM Fiat to resolve, because not every game should need to focus on violent conflict resolution.There's hundreds of thousands of millions of types of conflict that are not best resolved by beating up the other side. There are millions of people who are interested in those kinds of conflict more so than violent conflict, or who want to use it alongside violent conflict. Violent conflict is superbly entertaining, but it is not exclusively entertaining, and broadening the types of conflict that D&D can resolve well is a relatively simple and unobtrusive way to say: "Yes, now you can play a game of Politics and Princesses with the D&D rules."It faces two big hurdles:#1: The perception that everything that isn't combat is best resolved by DM Fiat#2: The perception that everything that isn't combat requires copious amounts of specific detail to resolve.Mostly I've spent time trying to show that neither of these are true -- as hundreds of TTRPGs, indie and otherwise, have shown. Even videogames do moral conflict better than D&D, and all they are is binary switches that make pretty colors.Of course, videogames don't do those very well -- they are at their best as combat engines.D&D has a lot of capacity to be good at a whole host of game styles, but I'm pretty sure it won't ever beat videogames for combat potential. Physics is mathematical, and so are computers. Conflict is social, and so are D&D groups. Heh, I guess I got a bit preachy there, so I'm sorry for that. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" /> But the big thing to take away is this:Rules for resolving conflict do not have to be limited to hitting people with swords, and if you're going to use those kinds of conflict a lot in your games, you are better served rules than with the DM's judgment call.</blockquote>

Verification