What's on your mind?
+ Log in or register to post
Results 191 to 200 of 1497
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 04:30 AM #191
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
- EN World
- has no influence
- on advertisings
- that are displayed by
- Google Adsense
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 04:31 AM #192
The Grand Druid (Lvl 20)
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 04:33 AM #193
Grandfather of Assassins (Lvl 19)
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 04:50 AM #194
Enchanter (Lvl 12)
- Nagol makes a ride check to perpetuate his pursuit evasion > it fails > adversity arises in the form of a gorge (which creates a decision-point.
- Nagol's PC rides hard at high speed, navigating treacherous terrain, possibly trying to avoid ranged fire, possibly trying to detect the few trailmarks of a small landbridge over the gorge (if you need post-hoc rationale)...he emerges over a rise only to find himself facing the gorge. He doesn't think "damn, I know I almost fell out of the saddle as my horse took a mis-step...but how did that create this gorge?" He probably thinks, while lungs are heaving for air, "I can't believe I missed the land bridge...I was concentrating so hard on controlling my horse and staying in the saddle that I've now backed myself into a corner...that's great." Or perhaps "Gorges...why did it have to be gorges? I hate gorges..."
Beyond that, every second of every game is not mapped out and does not exist in a "quantum state" between superpositions...its unrealized fiction waiting to be iterated. Further, every square inch of every region, micro and macro, is not cartographically fleshed out. Obsessing over a poor simulation's fidelity to a modeled system seems absurd when those two inputs aren't bounded or even quantified (that doesn't even include all of the other dubious math and abstractions which further exacerbate the infidelity).
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 05:01 AM #195
Lama (Lvl 13)
If you're referring to connections to the story (or back story) that's debatable. Many RPG plots involve very little PC connection to the story or world.
If you're referring to the background for the charaters in the board game that's also fixable. The Drizzt game featured many charaters with a background.
5 Minute Workday my D&D/Pathfinder Webcomic and Blog, new comics every Tues/Thur. www.5mwd.com
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 05:34 AM #196
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
- Join Date
- Sep 2002
- Detroit, MI
- Read 0 Reviews
- Blog Entries
ø Ignore Remathilis
In a board game (lets say, Clue). I have a strict, if arbitrary set of rules I must follow in order to play. It doesn't matter which character I am (Prof Plumb or Ms. Scarlet) I follow the same rules. These rules include a.) being in a room to make an accusation b.) moving from room to room via random (d6) roll, and c.) the very real possibility that unbeknownst to me, the character I am playing might be the killer, right down to self-incrimination being the only way to win!
Now, take the basic premise of Clue and put it in an RPG. First off, there would be no rule on the movement of characters, they could move from room to room as they chose (assuming reasonable walking time to get there.) They would not be limited mere guessing of cards, but would attempt to locate clues (follow tracks, search for prints, question other characters into making a slip) as well as do things the game doesn't account for (the killer may try to murder another character too close to the truth, the characters may form alliances, call the cops, or simply flee). Furthermore, assuming no mind-control or evil-twin scenario, the killer would be aware of his status and attempt to thwart attempts at discovery, perhaps by misleading clues.
In short, they behave as rational people would in such a scenario using the boundaries of imagination and the assumed laws of such a world (mirroring ours).
In fact, it'd play out a bit more like this:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFCoESGS-7E]Clue the movie trailer - YouTube[/ame]
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MaP8vzLxWx8]Clue Classic gameplay PC part 1 - YouTube[/ame]
Originally Posted by Arkhandus
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 11:18 AM #197
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 11:33 AM #198
My character's thoughts would go similar to what you have, but further into how the character is reacting and what the character is learning:
"I can't believe I missed the land bridge...I was concentrating so hard on controlling my horse and staying in the saddle that I've now backed myself into a corner...that's great. I've got to learn to pay more attention and if I'm going to stay in this area any longer I better understand the layout better. That is, if I manage to live thorugh this mistake..."
As a character, I think my perception ability and/or my geographical knowledge are at fault. I rode fine; the horse is unharmed, I am keeping a decent speed, and haven't faulted. But an obstruction is blocking my escape.
As a player, I know that if I want to avoid failures like this in the future, I should improve Riding.
So what happens if the player wants to reduce the failure chance? He buys something to improve his Riding.
If the player stays in character and tries to develop as the character should desire for his situation he has a quandary. He knows game information that says he should buy the character improved Riding. The contextual information provided in game is suggesting he should improve in other ways.
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 06:30 PM #199
The Great Druid (Lvl 17)
Which means that from the player's perspective, there may not be much difference. I mean, if the player states that he wants his PC to escape by riding away, and I say go ahead, without any thought of a gorge, then if he fails the roll, I'll not include a gorge. OTOH, as he is picking up his dice, I'm already thinking about failure conditions. If a gorge fits logically into the world and pacing and feel of the story as it is rolling, then that's what I've already decided upon for failure.
I'll grant that I'm completely quirky about this compared to most people, as this mainly only directly affects the fiction as imagined in my head, not the players. Maybe it's vanity. But I do think that for me it's a self-imposed limit that leads, indirectly, to a greater consistency in the imagined game world for the players.
Whereas, in BW, the constant harping on known stakes and intents, even if you must explicitly state them, means that this kind of problem doesn't arise. Either the gorge is a piece of color, narrated by DM or player, due to a crucial roll--or series of rolls--or the gorge is implied by the stakes, intents, and skills brought to bear. Namely, the objection that local knowledge is not considered wouldn't come up, because a BW character trying to get away is going to use Riding and (This Local Area)-Wise and anything else that pertains, stated clearly before any rolls are attempted.
Since I've ported that mentality to skill challenges, as I don't think they work as well without it, I can safely say that the quantum gorge would not arise in play for me. Anything could be in place, if only in my head, before the dice hit the table. But any skill that is relevant will also be in the discussion. That's for a given round of a skill challenge. The next round is a chance for everyone to react to circumstances and the flow of the story. So a gorge appearing in the next round is no different than anything else I spin out of the known, consistent world reacting to the players' actions.
I don't pretend that my way is the only way to deal with this issue. I do think that to the extent you worry about continuity issues, you'll get driven to some form of pure process simulation OR something very much like stakes and intents. I was already 3/4s there to stakes and intents when I first encountered the terms. So that was an easy choice for me.
Sunday, 29th July, 2012, 07:23 PM #200
Magsman (Lvl 14)
- Join Date
- Jan 2002
- Edenvale, San Jose, CA
- Read 0 Reviews
ø Ignore Tony Vargas