Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5861084" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this is too strong a criterion, and the argument for it relies on a pun - ie "X is unwanted by A" generally means "A is averse to X", but in this context all that is required is that "X has not desire for A". It is possible to have situations in which something is not the object of desire, but also is not the object of aversion. Examples of such things include the unexpected or surprising, and I think one importnat function of RPG rules is to introudce the unexpected or surprising into the fiction.There is also an issue of time-sequence in relation to the desire/aversion/surprise. One important function of RPG rules, in my view, is to create results that wouldn't arise out of agreement because no one would think of them, or think of moving the fiction towards them. But it is not fatal to this that the surprise not be sudden. For example, there are various forms of RPG conflict resolution - combat rules in many games, extended conflict rules in games like HeroWars/Quest, 4e (skill challenges), etc - that create a "space" in which the resolution of events is structured and "drawn out" in a certain sort of way. And in this space unexpected things happen (you once posted an example of a negotiation between a PC and some NPCs, in which the PC's success was a foregone conclusion, but the process of accuring sufficient successful skill checks required the PC to actual play out the negotiations, which in turn produced unexpected offers to and compromises with the NPCs).When this sort of resolution is being resolved at the table, it can sometimes - perhaps often, even - be the case that, as things play out, everyone suddenly sees some endpoint creeping up on them, that they hadn't anticipated and looks like it might be interesting and exciting. It doesn't undermine the funciton and utility of these rules that by the time the at-first unanticipated ending actually comes around, people at the table have noticed it and started pushing towards it. The rules did their job in creating the space for it.A further complication here is that the point of view of desire, rejection etc can be either that of the player, or that of the PC. One further function of action resolution rules, in my view, is to handle and mediate the pressure between these two perspectives, so that players can (i) play their PCs to the hilt (as described in the Eero Tuovinen blog post on pitfalls of design that you have linked to from time to time), yet (ii) get results that are satisfying for themselves and others at the table, even if not what their PC would desire. Good mechanics can ensure that the game doesn't turn into inspid "conch-passing", in which players sacrifice their advocacy for their PCs (how much? and in whose interests?) in pursuit of a story. (And on the flipside, good action resolution mechanics remove the need for any reliance on the GM to do the same thing on his/her side of the table, via the so-called Golden Rule of White Wolf/AD&D 2nd ed notoriety.)The relationship of randomness in resolution mechanics to all this is an interesting question. It obviously depends a great deal on how the random mechanics are designed, what other factors bear upon the framing of the "question" that the random mechanics answer, etc. I've played a lot of a game notorious for its random crit tables - namely, Rolemaster - and they certainly are part of the charm of the game. But in my view their main effect on combat is tactical - for example, they make focus fire less significant as a tactic than it is in D&D hit point attrition combat - and not dramatic. Not to say that they couldn't be adapted or developed in a more dramatic direction, but that would be a non-trivial amount of work (compare Rolemaster or classic RQ, for example, to Burning Wheel and the machinery that it uses to frame its crit-based combat resolution).</blockquote>

Verification