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 coming! 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
You're doing what? Surprising the DM
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: 6111206" data-attributes="member: 6696971"><p>@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?23935-Nagol" target="_blank"><strong><span style="color: #ffffcc">Nagol</span></strong></a> I'm generally in agreement with you on most of your points. Here is the thing though. We're talking about technique, table agenda, and social contract working in concert with system infrastructure and design. This is why we've had so many conversations regarding 4e design (I won't even bring up the "power which shall not be named") and the table dissonance when trying to shoehorn "classic" D&D open-world sandboxing coupled with the the presumption of actor stance with a heavy does of metagame aversion.</p><p></p><p>On the polar ends of the various axes:</p><p></p><p>- if I'm wanting a 100 % scene based game, then I want resources isolated to scenes/encounters and the expectation of pacing and play built around each scene being a closed system. Any "extra-scene" resources and pacing design that spans multiple scenes is problematic. </p><p></p><p>- if I'm wanting a 100 % open-world exploration experience that presumes actor stance, process simulation and eschews the metagame, then any bits that are "arbitrarily" confined to the scene/encounter for gamist interests is problematic. Any author and director stance player resources that promote metagame leveraging and player narrative authorship (the outright creation of world content or subversion of the autonomy of other actors) are problematic.</p><p></p><p> - (* your scenario and the answer to your question) if I'm wanting strategic "step on up" gamist experience then I'm going to want strategic resources (such as plane shift) that require cost-benefit analysis at a strategic level...and players will have to deal with the consequences of actualizing them. The play at the table should presume that they will have those consequences and will have to deal with them; in the same way that they will reap the rewards upon successful strategic use of them. If I don't want this paradigm to be at work then I shouldn't be playing a system where resource schemes are fundamentally organized around this premise. OR, the table is going to need to come up with techniques and strong social accord to avoid such a scenario (which then begs the question...why don't you just play a game that supports what you're looking for rather than forcing a square peg into a round hole?) </p><p></p><p>- if I'm wanting tactical "step on up" gamist experience then I'm going to want tactical resources (such as the 4e at-will/encounter power system) that are isolated to a closed system (scene/encounter) with respect to scope and impact. </p><p></p><p>Most people don't play at the absolute polarized ends of these spectra. However, some do and it is perfectly feasible to play 100 % closed scene, author/director stance-friendly, tactical play just as you can have 100 % open world, actor-scene only/metagame averse, strategic play. They are both legitimate, functional (and quite different from one another) playstyles. The further you move away from the absolute, polarized ends of those spectrums, then you're going to get into the realm where home-grown technique, coordinated table agenda, and social contract manifest to arbitrate these disputes.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6111206, member: 6696971"] @[URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?23935-Nagol"][B][COLOR=#ffffcc]Nagol[/COLOR][/B][/URL] I'm generally in agreement with you on most of your points. Here is the thing though. We're talking about technique, table agenda, and social contract working in concert with system infrastructure and design. This is why we've had so many conversations regarding 4e design (I won't even bring up the "power which shall not be named") and the table dissonance when trying to shoehorn "classic" D&D open-world sandboxing coupled with the the presumption of actor stance with a heavy does of metagame aversion. On the polar ends of the various axes: - if I'm wanting a 100 % scene based game, then I want resources isolated to scenes/encounters and the expectation of pacing and play built around each scene being a closed system. Any "extra-scene" resources and pacing design that spans multiple scenes is problematic. - if I'm wanting a 100 % open-world exploration experience that presumes actor stance, process simulation and eschews the metagame, then any bits that are "arbitrarily" confined to the scene/encounter for gamist interests is problematic. Any author and director stance player resources that promote metagame leveraging and player narrative authorship (the outright creation of world content or subversion of the autonomy of other actors) are problematic. - (* your scenario and the answer to your question) if I'm wanting strategic "step on up" gamist experience then I'm going to want strategic resources (such as plane shift) that require cost-benefit analysis at a strategic level...and players will have to deal with the consequences of actualizing them. The play at the table should presume that they will have those consequences and will have to deal with them; in the same way that they will reap the rewards upon successful strategic use of them. If I don't want this paradigm to be at work then I shouldn't be playing a system where resource schemes are fundamentally organized around this premise. OR, the table is going to need to come up with techniques and strong social accord to avoid such a scenario (which then begs the question...why don't you just play a game that supports what you're looking for rather than forcing a square peg into a round hole?) - if I'm wanting tactical "step on up" gamist experience then I'm going to want tactical resources (such as the 4e at-will/encounter power system) that are isolated to a closed system (scene/encounter) with respect to scope and impact. Most people don't play at the absolute polarized ends of these spectra. However, some do and it is perfectly feasible to play 100 % closed scene, author/director stance-friendly, tactical play just as you can have 100 % open world, actor-scene only/metagame averse, strategic play. They are both legitimate, functional (and quite different from one another) playstyles. The further you move away from the absolute, polarized ends of those spectrums, then you're going to get into the realm where home-grown technique, coordinated table agenda, and social contract manifest to arbitrate these disputes. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
You're doing what? Surprising the DM
Top