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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
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="Balesir" data-source="post: 5994626" data-attributes="member: 27160"><p>Well, no, I don't think anyone should be "purely" focussed on any one thing at all. But playing different systems is a good thing in and of itself, in that it helps you understand what sorts of play particular systems are good at, and when there are better alternatives for what you are trying to do <em>in a particular campaign</em>. When I play any system, I don't play it in a vacuum - the way I play is informed by all the other systems (and styles) that I have played. I think experience of a range of systems is a very helpful thing for any roleplayer, even if, after having the varied experience, they decide to return to playing just one system. At least they will know what is "beyond" that system, and how it might do things differently from the way it does.</p><p></p><p>As [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] says, as long as no silly assertions are made, sure.</p><p></p><p>Sort of, except that it goes a bit further than that. The entire process of how the outcome comes about is not fixed or shared between the players - just the outcome is shared.</p><p></p><p>Specifically, not only is the process part not described verbally, but the system is not taken to be a model or description of the process, either. Since you give hit points as an example, later, I'll try to clarify based on that below.</p><p></p><p>No, there's no real double standard - I expect my own imagined process to be totally believable to me (given the genre and so on that I think of the game as being in). But I no longer have to synch my conception of how the process works with either other players or the game's designers. Since the <strong>system</strong> does not model the process by which the outcome happens, the requirements I have of the <strong>system</strong> are diminished. All the system has to do is produce a believable range of outcomes through the game; this is, in practice, a much easier goal than trying to plausibly model the process by which the outcome is generated while <em>simultaneously</em> generating a believable spread of outcomes.</p><p></p><p>I apply a stringent criterion of plausibility to what I envision my character's and other creatures' physical condition to be, yes. To guide me in this, I use several facts as guidelines to ensure I don't err:</p><p></p><p>- I know that any creature that reaches zero hit points is down and disabled; not <em>necessarily</em> dead, but incapable of offensive action and likely unconscious.</p><p></p><p>- I know that any creature with more than zero hit points is not hindered from taking actions by physical injury or damage.</p><p></p><p>- I know that magic and possibly other effects can return hit points to creatures that have lost them.</p><p></p><p>- I know that "hits" in combat reduce the target's hit points, possibly (but not necessarily) below zero.</p><p></p><p>Based on these "facts" - that I know from a reading of the rules - I can decide how I envision the game-world working whenever a creature gains or loses hit points. I can decide how I envision losing hit points either generically (the same every time) or on a case-by-case basis, as best fits what I am comfortable to accept as the game world's "reality". My envisioning of these processes does not need to be the same as that used by any other player - as long as we both have a "picture" that satisfies us about what "losing hit points from a <such-and-such> attack" looks like, all we need to know as shared "reality" is that a <such-and-such> attack has been made, and that it caused the target to lose hit points.</p><p></p><p>To an observer, it might look less "alive and evocative" than it would if the players are busy describing vividly the way their characters are getting the results they are getting all the time, but to us, as we play, it's just as vivid because the action is happening inside our own imaginations, informed by the shared essential facts that the system and inter-player communication of character action gives us.</p><p></p><p>Is that any clearer?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5994626, member: 27160"] Well, no, I don't think anyone should be "purely" focussed on any one thing at all. But playing different systems is a good thing in and of itself, in that it helps you understand what sorts of play particular systems are good at, and when there are better alternatives for what you are trying to do [I]in a particular campaign[/I]. When I play any system, I don't play it in a vacuum - the way I play is informed by all the other systems (and styles) that I have played. I think experience of a range of systems is a very helpful thing for any roleplayer, even if, after having the varied experience, they decide to return to playing just one system. At least they will know what is "beyond" that system, and how it might do things differently from the way it does. As [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] says, as long as no silly assertions are made, sure. Sort of, except that it goes a bit further than that. The entire process of how the outcome comes about is not fixed or shared between the players - just the outcome is shared. Specifically, not only is the process part not described verbally, but the system is not taken to be a model or description of the process, either. Since you give hit points as an example, later, I'll try to clarify based on that below. No, there's no real double standard - I expect my own imagined process to be totally believable to me (given the genre and so on that I think of the game as being in). But I no longer have to synch my conception of how the process works with either other players or the game's designers. Since the [B]system[/B] does not model the process by which the outcome happens, the requirements I have of the [B]system[/B] are diminished. All the system has to do is produce a believable range of outcomes through the game; this is, in practice, a much easier goal than trying to plausibly model the process by which the outcome is generated while [I]simultaneously[/I] generating a believable spread of outcomes. I apply a stringent criterion of plausibility to what I envision my character's and other creatures' physical condition to be, yes. To guide me in this, I use several facts as guidelines to ensure I don't err: - I know that any creature that reaches zero hit points is down and disabled; not [I]necessarily[/I] dead, but incapable of offensive action and likely unconscious. - I know that any creature with more than zero hit points is not hindered from taking actions by physical injury or damage. - I know that magic and possibly other effects can return hit points to creatures that have lost them. - I know that "hits" in combat reduce the target's hit points, possibly (but not necessarily) below zero. Based on these "facts" - that I know from a reading of the rules - I can decide how I envision the game-world working whenever a creature gains or loses hit points. I can decide how I envision losing hit points either generically (the same every time) or on a case-by-case basis, as best fits what I am comfortable to accept as the game world's "reality". My envisioning of these processes does not need to be the same as that used by any other player - as long as we both have a "picture" that satisfies us about what "losing hit points from a <such-and-such> attack" looks like, all we need to know as shared "reality" is that a <such-and-such> attack has been made, and that it caused the target to lose hit points. To an observer, it might look less "alive and evocative" than it would if the players are busy describing vividly the way their characters are getting the results they are getting all the time, but to us, as we play, it's just as vivid because the action is happening inside our own imaginations, informed by the shared essential facts that the system and inter-player communication of character action gives us. Is that any clearer? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
With Respect to the Door and Expectations....The REAL Reason 5e Can't Unite the Base
Top