|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 27, 2013 13:18:25 GMT -8
Hi. As I contemplate ending my life as one way to escape my graduate research of these infernal rulebooks I realise, maybe someone can help me here. And if my hell is populated by rules-lawyer munchkins, I would like to avoid death as long as possible. In the DMG there is a reference to the adventuring world being tailored or status quo. Tailored is all about meta-gaming the encounters so they are "right" for players. Status quo means all is consistent with the story. And there is a little small blurb on it the size of a mustard grain. I am searching for the page where that referrence is made. NOT, I may add, because I do not know what I am talking about but because I am explaining myself within the limitations of the rules context. And references are needed to cross the T and dot the I. I hope GM = System will be accepted after this. LINKPlease kindly give me the page number so I can move on with my life, please....
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 28, 2013 3:13:18 GMT -8
I have scoured the Interwebz and found only statements about the status quo world and confirmation that the definition is in the DMG without knowing where - and the person did not know where either, writing in 2005 that he did not have his books at work.
I have those books but my eyes are skipping the mention of tailor and status quo. I do not have the PDFs to search for the words either. And this is BEFORE I prepare for a game....
Can anyone, you know, help me out? Does no one here have a PDF of v3.5?
In the interest to appear productive, here are the quotes I found:
"The DM does not change the world to accomidate PC's - PC's must adventure and change the world to accomidate them."
"the players are not the center of the game and should not be tailored to as such"
|
|
|
Post by jazzisblues on Mar 28, 2013 5:49:44 GMT -8
I don't have the books with me and I have to reload my laptop (Stupid Windblows had to reformat last night and I'm still putting it all back together), but I do want to comment on it conceptually. (I will look up the reference you're after when I get home though that might be too late for you.)
I think absolutes are a risky proposition when it comes to games. I think it is equally wrong to say that the players MUST change to suit the game as it is to say that the game MUST change to suit the players. For my purposes the two sort of orbit around a common center and the whole thing players, characters, story arc(s), ... (anything else that might be part of the game as a whole) ... mechanics tend to be somewhat fluid and organic.
To illustrate what I'm driving at:
A character may evolve to meet a challenge presented in the game. For example, the character may not be powerful enough to face the big bad nasty guy so they learn, they grow and they evolve new tactics and ways of doing things in hopes of defeating the bad guy. (Character evolves to fit the game.)
A character may decide that some little aspect of the game is actually really important to them, so I flow the game a bit and make that thing more important to the story. For example, the character might have a gun that holds the soul of her dead father (not creepy he inhabits the gun of his own free will). This started out as a minor thing relevant to her character but is now a MAJOR plot point in the game. (Game evolves to suit the character)
The game (mechanically) may evolve to make the game more interesting or fun for the players. We might start out using one mechanic, but as the game progresses some element of the mechanic either doesn't work for the game at hand or could be made even more impactive on game play. In either case the game can change to excite the players. (Game construct evolves to suit the participants)
All of the above are equally valid and may all at one time or another occur within a single game. My point being that I think it's better for everyone and for the game entire to be organic and somewhat fluid with it.
Cheers,
JiB
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 28, 2013 15:32:29 GMT -8
Hi JiB,
I would much appreciate that referrence anytime you can helpfully provide it. I have been working on this project since 21 March. I won't finish it before my early morning bedtime today.
About the quotes: I just picked them out from places like ENWorld where I travelled looking for the v3.5 reference.
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 29, 2013 8:48:39 GMT -8
I have re-read a great deal of the DMG 3.5 and I still cannot find the section. I am almost certain it is NOT in the DMG.
Next, I wearily picked up the two For Dummies books (I see subtle suggestion here) and I could not find it there either. I really did read this section! I KNOW I DID BECAUSE THAT IS WHERE I GOT THE TERM "STATUS QUO." My world in practice hardly relates to a status quo but that is designer jargon I picked up from read it in one of these books. I know I am probably on the path to early dementia but, really, even the Internets is telling me the passage not only exists but is in the DMG, which I can now hardly believe.
Remember, when writing a term paper, presentation and thorough referencing counts. It makes you seem wiser than you might otherwise be perceived. And when writing a munchkin, that advice cannot hurt but only help.
Where is this reference from? And seriously, I am writing this letter to a player rather than writing up a new adventure for a player?
|
|
|
Post by CreativeCowboy on Mar 29, 2013 9:19:49 GMT -8
Here is something new on the Interwebz today. And searching it, I find page 48 has my Status Quo and Tailor World source referrence. And it was in the v3.5 DMG! Damn that's frustrating. Imagine that at your table while you're playing a supposed game.
|
|