Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The Crimson Binome" data-source="post: 6677194" data-attributes="member: 6775031">The rules of the game tell us which actions correspond to which narrative, in the same way that the stats on a suit of plate armor correspond to the in-game object that is a suit of plate armor. It doesn't need to be detailed in order to have a strong correlation.Of course, strength is relative. If I spend my one-minute round in order to move 15 feet and take the attack action, then that translates into the character moving ~15 feet and performing some combination of thrusts and feints and parries which ultimately results in the opponent suffering some amount of injury. It's a strong correlation between &quot;taking the attack action&quot; and &quot;performing some combination of thrusts and parries, etc.&quot; You could abstract that up a couple of notches if you wanted the freedom to describe a series of elaborate maneuvers that simple unnerve the enemy into being easier to skewer later on, or you could increase the correlation to the point where each facet of the d20 corresponds to a body part and each facet of the weapon-damage-die corresponds to a a depth of penetration.When I say strong correlation, in the context of this thread, it's relative to the many other models that are in use. In particular, I mean that there is enough information derived directly from the check results in order for it to tell us what's going on within the narrative, rather than it simply compelling the GM to narrate vaguely-related circumstances in a vaguely-related way. For me, the line between strong and weak correlation is evident in the Perception check to find a particular item in a town, when there's every possibility that it might not exist there. For you, that level of correlation might still be considered too weak to be meaningful.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The Crimson Binome, post: 6677194, member: 6775031"] The rules of the game tell us which actions correspond to which narrative, in the same way that the stats on a suit of plate armor correspond to the in-game object that is a suit of plate armor. It doesn't need to be detailed in order to have a strong correlation. Of course, strength is relative. If I spend my one-minute round in order to move 15 feet and take the attack action, then that translates into the character moving ~15 feet and performing some combination of thrusts and feints and parries which ultimately results in the opponent suffering some amount of injury. It's a strong correlation between "taking the attack action" and "performing some combination of thrusts and parries, etc." You could abstract that up a couple of notches if you wanted the freedom to describe a series of elaborate maneuvers that simple [I]unnerve[/I] the enemy into being easier to skewer later on, or you could increase the correlation to the point where each facet of the d20 corresponds to a body part and each facet of the weapon-damage-die corresponds to a a depth of penetration. When I say strong correlation, in the context of this thread, it's relative to the many other models that are in use. In particular, I mean that there is [I]enough[/I] information derived directly from the check results in order for it to [I]tell us[/I] what's going on within the narrative, rather than it simply compelling the GM to narrate vaguely-related circumstances in a vaguely-related way. For me, the line between strong and weak correlation is evident in the Perception check to find a particular item in a town, when there's every possibility that it might not exist there. For you, that level of correlation might still be considered too weak to be meaningful. [/QUOTE]

Verification