Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4132664" data-attributes="member: 4937">I would consider 'alignment' to be something that has rules pertaining to it.&nbsp; If I have a known alignment, there can be rules consequences to having an alignment.&nbsp; How that alignment is expressed through role play is not a rules matter, and different tables and players will have very different interpretations of how chaoticness, lawfulness, goodness and so forth are to be narratively expressed.&nbsp; Whereas the treasure guidelines are, as you have said, just guidelines intended to accomplish the goal of giving players sufficient resources to face the task they are expected to face.&nbsp; There are any number of ways to ensure that goal, but there is no game rule which demands that that goal even be met - much less in a particular way.&nbsp; There are however metagame expectations I would think at most tables that the goal be regularly met.&nbsp; That is however a different matter than a game rule.I think concieving things which aren't related to action resolution as rules unnecessarily constrains the way the game is played, and it tends to force DMs (and often players) into saying 'no' to perfectly valid ways of playing with the rules set.I think I would like a more concrete example.Obviously, I could have made 'cooler descriptions' if I wanted to.&nbsp; But I'm not sure that 'cooler descriptions' is really the heart of where Lost Soul is going with his argument.&nbsp; He seems to be aiming more for 'who has narrative control' than 'are people being expressive'.&nbsp; Obviously, people could be required to be expressive in either system.&nbsp; But if there are really changes in who has narrative control, that's actually a difference.&nbsp; I'm just not convinced that there are actually changes in narrative control.I'm not sure yet that this is actually different than what already occurs when the players begin resolving a challenge.&nbsp; I believe that the above description hides behind semantics, but is functionally the same thing.&nbsp; I don't see a real difference between, &quot;the player describing what action the PC performs&quot; and &quot;the player describes how his or her PC does something that contributes to the success of the party in relation to the challenge...and the GM and other players then build on that description in resolving the rest of the challenge&quot;.&nbsp; What distinction are you trying to make?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4132664, member: 4937"] I would consider 'alignment' to be something that has rules pertaining to it. If I have a known alignment, there can be rules consequences to having an alignment. How that alignment is expressed through role play is not a rules matter, and different tables and players will have very different interpretations of how chaoticness, lawfulness, goodness and so forth are to be narratively expressed. Whereas the treasure guidelines are, as you have said, just guidelines intended to accomplish the goal of giving players sufficient resources to face the task they are expected to face. There are any number of ways to ensure that goal, but there is no game rule which demands that that goal even be met - much less in a particular way. There are however metagame expectations I would think at most tables that the goal be regularly met. That is however a different matter than a game rule. I think concieving things which aren't related to action resolution as rules unnecessarily constrains the way the game is played, and it tends to force DMs (and often players) into saying 'no' to perfectly valid ways of playing with the rules set. I think I would like a more concrete example. Obviously, I could have made 'cooler descriptions' if I wanted to. But I'm not sure that 'cooler descriptions' is really the heart of where Lost Soul is going with his argument. He seems to be aiming more for 'who has narrative control' than 'are people being expressive'. Obviously, people could be required to be expressive in either system. But if there are really changes in who has narrative control, that's actually a difference. I'm just not convinced that there are actually changes in narrative control. I'm not sure yet that this is actually different than what already occurs when the players begin resolving a challenge. I believe that the above description hides behind semantics, but is functionally the same thing. I don't see a real difference between, "the player describing what action the PC performs" and "the player describes how his or her PC does something that contributes to the success of the party in relation to the challenge...and the GM and other players then build on that description in resolving the rest of the challenge". What distinction are you trying to make? [/QUOTE]

Verification