Search results

What do you mean by "author stance"? The only definition I'm familiar with comes from here, and you're obviously not using that one.

It is fundamentally different because the player declared intent first. MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic is not a PbtA game.

GNS is about characterising play, and the suitability of RPGs for various sorts of play. Whether you think the three categories are helpful or not, I think the notion of characterising the suitability of RPGs for various sorts of play makes sense.

I think that 4e D&D is a variant of D&D. And "fail forward" is a key idea in 4e D&D, especially skill challenge resolution. And Burning Wheel is a game in which "fail forward" is key an in which skills do represent a character's innate ability to do things. So I think both the assertions I've...

No one thinks that. That's why it's not a part of anyone's RPGing. It doesn't. "Played a roll in determining" and "decide" are not synonyms - unless you're coining some new jargon that I'm not familiar with. But in any event, what @hawkeyefan and I replied to you was your assertion that...

That was the point of my post. Which, again, was in reply to @clearstream.

And "don't be a weasel" comes from Mouse Guard. And is also affirmed in the BW Adventure Burner. There is a degree of continuity/influence across some of these games. Which is not to say that they are all the same, especially when it comes to techniques. And my view - probably unsurprisingly -...

Right. This is the whole point of the MHRP resolution engine: the player never has to leave actor stance.

But this makes everything that is unknown "quantum superposition"! Which is not what quantum superposition is. I mean, I don't know - right now - where my phone is. It could be in the living room, on my desk or in my bag. That doesn't mean my phone is in a state of "quantum superposition"...

Why does the testimony of @Firebird outweigh that of @AbdulAlhazred, or any other poster in this thread, as to what is "likely"? No doubt it is possible that some RPGers illusion of an independent world might be shattered by (say) Burning Wheel's methods of play, But what is your basis for...

I don't know BitD or Vampire well-enough to answer. I've GMed a fair bit of Classic Traveller over the past several years. I think it works best played in a manner similar to Apocalypse World: "if you do it, you do it" and making soft or hard moves based on success or failure on the dice. I...

Tuovineni is a self-identified lover of simulationism. He doesn't reject himself! I am a self-identified simulationist, in that I have played more Rolemaster than any single other RPG - by quite a large margin. And I find Edwards' discussion of purist-for-system play extremely insightful. I...

As I've posted not far upthread, the player doesn't decide what the runes say.

Even this is not quite correct. The player said, as their PC, "I will try and decipher these runes, hoping that they will reveal a way out of the dungeon." And this is not correct at all. I don't know where you're getting this from. I don't know what would have happened on a failure - it's too...

You have attributed something to @hawkeyefan which I said. And the reason I spoke about MHRP/Cortex+ Fantasy Heroic is because that was the RPG that was played where the PC read the runes. I've posted the example twice in this thread, more recently as an illustration of a point in reply to...

Huh? It seems to me pointless to try and talk about "PbtA" as a class. That would be liking talking about all games that involve rolling dice and adding them up. But Apocalypse World has a clear rule for failure: (1) it happens on a result of 6 or less, and (2) the GM is able to make as hard...

It was @TheFirebird who introduced the discussion of "winning", not me, and who suggested that the players in the games I've posted about are not trying to win. So I was asking what was meant by that. I didn't post anything about winning. This is what I posted:

It seems obvious to me that if the GM embodies the setting, the players are not at full liberty to set their own goals. Or, alternatively, they can set their own goals but it may be that failure is fore-ordained because of decisions made by the GM as embodying the setting.

This is not correct. The player expressed a hope for what the runes said. Dice were then rolled, and that hope came true. Saying that the player "decided" what the runes said is like saying that a player in D&D just "decides" that their PC kills an Orc, when we all know that the player can't...

I don't see how this makes any difference. In my Cortex+ Fantasy game, the player decides that their PC attempts to read the runes, hoping that they will reveal a way out. Exactly the same action declaration could happen in any other FRPG. The difference between the resolution in the Cortex+...