Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5463185" data-attributes="member: 42582">Pawsplay, I don't think I have a lot more to add to the discussion about narrativism, genre etc. I think the points you make are intelligently put, and I don't have an intellectual rebuttal. My response to the contrast Edwards' draws with his reference to bushido in GURPS/Sorcerer is based on play experience rather than theory (and I do think purist-for-system simulationism can be used for vanilla narrativist play, because I have done this with Rolemaster).That's not an intellectual argument. It's just a report of one person's (perhaps idiosyncratic) experience of RPGing.And - thinking of the Star Wars example - I feel that the difference between narrativist play and the sort of genre simulation you are describing is that what you are describing still seems to require settling questions of theme in advance, and building them into your mechanics. In this case, it then seems that play would be more like experiencing the confirmation of those prior determinations, rather than making decisions about theme in the course of play. But it may be that I am not fully following what you have in mind.The only one of your points that I actually want to contest is this:There is no benchmarking. But Danny's suggestion nevertheless is wrong. It is part of the 4e system that the GM must narrate so as to reconcile the mechanical difficulty with the fiction. (Of course, instead of it being a hard lock, it could be an easy lock in difficult conditions, or perhaps in some contexts the PC might be injured or distracted - that is, the full normal range of fictional conditions able to affect the difficulty can be brought into play.) But a GM who sets a high level moderate DC and tells the player that his/her PC is confronted by a mundane lock, and has nothing else to say about why it is so difficult, is not playing the game properly.</blockquote>

Verification