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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8149930" data-attributes="member: 16814">Here's the thing, you've misunderstood the framework pretty badly.  It's expandable and scalable.  It works at the combat round level, and at the campaign level, but if there's no objective at a given level, it's not used.  This should be obvious, but seems to be the primary point of contention -- if there's no campaign goal (yet), then you can't measure gamestate changes towards that goal.  What you can do is measure gamestate changes in the current fiction.  These build on each other (in fact, they're required to) to create the larger structure.  It's actually a measure of Force if a player (usually the GM) is enforcing a gamestate change to serve an objective rather than seeing how that objective is affect through play.It needs to be understood that this framework applies to all of the games being discussed here -- it's not a tool to describe your games, but a tool to look at all games.  There aren't arbitrary judgements -- each is well considered and can be clearly explained.  You disagreeing doesn't make them arbitrary, it just means you disagree.You mean like a saving throw to resist a Suggestion or Charm spell?  Or an Insight check to see if a character thinks someone is lying (shudder)?  Or a knowledge check to see what the character knows? At least be consistent.It's absolutely not, you've just internalized the parts of your own play that do this so they're blind spots.  I did, too.  A few years ago I was making the same arguments you are -- that this is crazy, of course play-acting is an exercise of player agency, etc.  It's like only understanding living in a valley for your whole life -- you can't imagine an ocean because of course everyone has mountains around.</blockquote>

Verification