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
Why does 5E SUCK?
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="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6653270" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>Just wanted to quote both of these right quick as I'm trying to get up to speed on responses. Both of these address issues that I wanted to address. These are responses to thread participants as a whole, not to pemerton.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>GM Force is different than GM fiat is different than GM scene framing authority. </p><p></p><p>Force is a very specific phenomenon. It is the phenomenon that I invoked quite a bit in the "Best of 4e" thread as 5e being very vulnerable to the phenomenon due to its construct and its ethos. It is the phenomenon that you're seeing [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] not just saying 5e is vulnerable to, but advocating the technique as the best/required way to run 5e. </p><p></p><p>Force is a technique that subordinates player agency or player authorship rights over their thematic, strategic, or tactical decision-making and/or the authentic/legitimate output of the resolution mechanics when they are consulted "to find out what happens." Suspension, abridgment or fudging of the action resolution mechanics or their results is the classic example of Force. Done by the GM it is GM Force. Done covertly (without knowledge or consent by the players) it is called Illusionism. Done prolifically and outside of the established social contract, it is called Railroading. Players consenting to such a scenario is called Participationism.</p><p></p><p>It is the reason that you're seeing [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION] protesting and crying foul.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Also true and addressing one of the aspects of KM's posts that I have a problem with. The only thing I'll add here is that I don't think 4e is ambiguous on it at all. </p><p></p><p>1) Mutliple of those Save My Game articles and Skill Challenge articles advocated for:</p><p></p><p>a) Let It Ride with the situation dynamically changing after each resolution</p><p>b) Success with Complications</p><p>c) Failing Forward</p><p></p><p>2) The advice in the DMGs, especially DMG 2, were stoutly in the corner of the situation changing dynamically post-resolution. People brought (utterly incoherent) process-sim carry-over for Extended Contests from 3.x and kludged it into 4e Skill Challenges. Hence why you have seen me routinely cite the "I DIPLOMANCE THE KING HARDER/MOAR" phenomenon when GMs respond to a failed parley (diplomacy check) with the king and his court with "...the king isn't convinced..." You can't have dynamic, closed-scene conflict resolution if the play procedures mandate that each micro-outcome and the authorship of each instance (or lackthereof) of subsequent content generation must be constrained by process simulating, causal logic and binary success/failure of the immediately preceding resolution.</p><p></p><p>If failed Diplomacy can only and ever mean "your target is unmoved/unconvinced/unfriendly", then expect social conflict to be boring/stagnant and expect the next action declaration to reflect that (eg MOAR/HARDER). 4e's Skill Challenge mechanics, and no good social conflict resolution, advocates for an unchanging situation post-resolution. This goes just the same for climbing mountains, crossing rope bridges, riding horseback, sign cutting and tracking, sneaking through barracks, and pulling out your roguish "Tricks of the Trade."</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6653270, member: 6696971"] Just wanted to quote both of these right quick as I'm trying to get up to speed on responses. Both of these address issues that I wanted to address. These are responses to thread participants as a whole, not to pemerton. GM Force is different than GM fiat is different than GM scene framing authority. Force is a very specific phenomenon. It is the phenomenon that I invoked quite a bit in the "Best of 4e" thread as 5e being very vulnerable to the phenomenon due to its construct and its ethos. It is the phenomenon that you're seeing [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] not just saying 5e is vulnerable to, but advocating the technique as the best/required way to run 5e. Force is a technique that subordinates player agency or player authorship rights over their thematic, strategic, or tactical decision-making and/or the authentic/legitimate output of the resolution mechanics when they are consulted "to find out what happens." Suspension, abridgment or fudging of the action resolution mechanics or their results is the classic example of Force. Done by the GM it is GM Force. Done covertly (without knowledge or consent by the players) it is called Illusionism. Done prolifically and outside of the established social contract, it is called Railroading. Players consenting to such a scenario is called Participationism. It is the reason that you're seeing [MENTION=6779717]Eric V[/MENTION] protesting and crying foul. Also true and addressing one of the aspects of KM's posts that I have a problem with. The only thing I'll add here is that I don't think 4e is ambiguous on it at all. 1) Mutliple of those Save My Game articles and Skill Challenge articles advocated for: a) Let It Ride with the situation dynamically changing after each resolution b) Success with Complications c) Failing Forward 2) The advice in the DMGs, especially DMG 2, were stoutly in the corner of the situation changing dynamically post-resolution. People brought (utterly incoherent) process-sim carry-over for Extended Contests from 3.x and kludged it into 4e Skill Challenges. Hence why you have seen me routinely cite the "I DIPLOMANCE THE KING HARDER/MOAR" phenomenon when GMs respond to a failed parley (diplomacy check) with the king and his court with "...the king isn't convinced..." You can't have dynamic, closed-scene conflict resolution if the play procedures mandate that each micro-outcome and the authorship of each instance (or lackthereof) of subsequent content generation must be constrained by process simulating, causal logic and binary success/failure of the immediately preceding resolution. If failed Diplomacy can only and ever mean "your target is unmoved/unconvinced/unfriendly", then expect social conflict to be boring/stagnant and expect the next action declaration to reflect that (eg MOAR/HARDER). 4e's Skill Challenge mechanics, and no good social conflict resolution, advocates for an unchanging situation post-resolution. This goes just the same for climbing mountains, crossing rope bridges, riding horseback, sign cutting and tracking, sneaking through barracks, and pulling out your roguish "Tricks of the Trade." [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Why does 5E SUCK?
Top