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: 6864114" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm posting sincerely.That's not to say that I'm laying my soul bare - in my experience, anonymous forums aren't well-suited to that - but I'm not goading (or, at least, I'm not setting out to do that) and I'm not playing devil's advocate.When I started reading this thread, I thought it was pretty obvious what [MENTION=82555]the[/MENTION]causaloblivion was looking for out of the game, and why that was being looked for, and why there might be concerns that 5e won't deliver it as reliably as 4e might have. (I can't comment on how obvious the 3E contrast is, as I don't have much 3E experience or expertise.)There were then a series of relatively hostile responses to the OP, which to my mind effectively reinforced the concerns that had initially been expressed, by emphasising the extent to which 5e hands control over the fiction, and action resolution, to the GM as compared to the players. In the current phase of the thread there continues to be the undertone that renouncing mechanical power is a virtue in a player; as well as the newly-emerging idea that it is the GM's job to "telegraph" to players how they ought to tackle an encounter.This all reminds me very much of both the advice found in, and many of my experiences with, 2nd ed AD&D. It seems a long way both from what Gygax describes in his DMG and PHB, and from what I'm used to in my own games (which are influenced more by "contemporary" approaches of the sort that have been discussed upthread, rather than directly by Gygax).Upthread, you yourself posted about wanting the GM to curb your decision-making in the interests of "the plot". As a player, I have had that sort of experience and ultimately it has led me to leaving games or being part of the "sacking" of a GM. As a GM - which for the past 20 years has been far-and-away my predominant role at the table - I don't see that sort of thing as part of my responsibility.I think there is also a side-issue in this thread (or, at least, an issue that hasn't really been addressed head-on), namely, what happens if the mechanics of the system break down so that the GM cannot frame challenges with mechanical reliability? I gather that this is a recurring problem with 3E. In my experience it is an issue with AD&D above name-level (and the standard response is to shut down many spells - as per Isle of the Ape, Q1 etc). In 4e I have found it to be an issue for knowledge skills at epic tier if a player takes the Sage of Ages epic destiny.This is essentially a system issue, not a player issue. If certain mechanical elements are known to be broken in advance (eg the Sharpshooter feat?) the best answer is to rework them or drop them from the game. (Back when I was a RM GM our group would do both these things.) If that broken-ness only emerges gradually in play and only impacts a part of the game (as has been the case for Sage of Ages), the GM might be able to work around it (as I do).(Broken-ness can be in terms of underpower as well as overpower, too. The ancestral shortsword or weapon-renouncing monk might be examples.)The idea that a player would be allowed to build a broken game element into his/her PC, and then expected to constrain his/her action declarations in respect of it; or the GM expected to block the use of that element from time-to-time in order to maintain balance (or, if the issue is underpower, "throw a bone" from time-to-time); is something that I see flagged in threads like this, including in this very thread. It's not an idea that I favour in my own RPGing. In play, I want my players to be pushing their PCs as hard as they can, not holding back because they're worried about the game breaking; and as GM I want to be able to frame encounters at a known degree of challenge so that I can then push that as hard as I can. I don't want to suddenly discover, part way through, that the system has let me down and hence that the stakes actually were not what I had taken them to be, and had signalled to my players.Again, the approach that I dis-favour is one that I personally associate quite strongly with 2nd ed AD&D.</blockquote>

Verification