Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8284065" data-attributes="member: 42582">In my previous two posts just upthread, I've been assuming that the game works as intended - eg that it is deliberately &quot;naturalistic&quot; in its approach to the scope and resolution of action declarations, to the way scenes are framed/extrapolated, etc. And trying to explain how, as I see it, the tension you point to in your OP can be obviated (by some approaches) or not (by other, more &quot;naturalistic&quot;, approaches).If the game is not well-designed, or generates consequences in actual operation that aren't intended or foreseen by the designers, then we're in another realm. In 4e D&amp;D this might happen if a class is designed which doesn't bring the right degree of &quot;oomph&quot; into encounter-level resolution. (Some people thought the Vampire was a class like this; I've got no personal experience to make that judgement.) In 5e this might happen if players are able to exercise so much control over scene framing and the rest cycle (eg via legacy magical effects that haven't been sufficiently analysed/rewritten) that the sorts of control the GM has to exercise over the fiction in order to preserve story imperatives become so ludicrous or obviously artificial that the whole point of the &quot;naturalistic&quot; approach is undermined.But I don't think our OP needs there to be these sorts of problems in order to get off the ground. All it needs is games that deliberately do not strongly parameterise player powers/authority/responsibilities vs GM ones in respect of scene framing, recovery and the like - instead approaching these in a &quot;naturalistic&quot; way.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8284065, member: 42582"] In my previous two posts just upthread, I've been assuming that the game works as intended - eg that it is deliberately "naturalistic" in its approach to the scope and resolution of action declarations, to the way scenes are framed/extrapolated, etc. And trying to explain how, as I see it, the tension you point to in your OP can be obviated (by some approaches) or not (by other, more "naturalistic", approaches). If the game is not well-designed, or generates consequences in actual operation that aren't intended or foreseen by the designers, then we're in another realm. In 4e D&D this might happen if a class is designed which doesn't bring the right degree of "oomph" into encounter-level resolution. (Some people thought the Vampire was a class like this; I've got no personal experience to make that judgement.) In 5e this might happen if players are able to exercise so much control over scene framing and the rest cycle (eg via legacy magical effects that haven't been sufficiently analysed/rewritten) that the sorts of control the GM has to exercise over the fiction in order to preserve story imperatives become so ludicrous or obviously artificial that the whole point of the "naturalistic" approach is undermined. But I don't think our OP needs there to be these sorts of problems in order to get off the ground. All it needs is games that deliberately do not strongly parameterise player powers/authority/responsibilities vs GM ones in respect of scene framing, recovery and the like - instead approaching these in a "naturalistic" way. [/QUOTE]

Verification