Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8286143" data-attributes="member: 71699">Oh? I am not &quot;looking to define&quot; SP. I am asking what those who propound it define it as? If some mechanics are in and some out, I'd like to understand what the filter is: what tells us when a mechanic is out rather than in?It sounds like any mechanic can be SP or not SP, depending on whether it engages with the fiction or lets players skip doing so? Based on other posts, I believe that play must also engage with the game's mechanical state, such as character positions on a shared map? Right? And player acts that aren't covered by game mechanics are still SP so long as they also engage granularly with the fiction.&nbsp; Is that all correct? As a player, I can't just say &quot;I persuaded the priest&quot; because that would be akin to rolling Charisma (Persuasion); instead I have to say how I persuade the priest. It would still be SP if I were then asked to roll Charisma (Persuasion) - or make an attack roll, or a Strength check, etc - and at that point it wouldn't matter that I have some mechanical advantage on such checks.I just want to be really clear on something: when it comes to engaging with the fiction, the DM decides if that succeeds or fails, right? We've already said that it isn't about rules - there aren't rules for succeeding of failing - it is about the fiction and the fiction is separable from rules. So when I say how I persuade the priest, it is up to the DM to say if that works.Thus what is referred to is a blend of boardgame-moves that can be resolved mechanically, and language-moves that are resolved by the DM. And players shouldn't use boardgame-moves to skip language-moves: that's not SP.Does that equate with your definition? Anything left out, or added erroneously?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8286143, member: 71699"] Oh? I am not "looking to define" SP. I am asking what those who propound it define it as? If some mechanics are in and some out, I'd like to understand what the filter is: what tells us when a mechanic is out rather than in? It sounds like any mechanic can be SP or not SP, depending on whether it engages with the fiction or lets players skip doing so? Based on other posts, I believe that play must also engage with the game's mechanical state, such as character positions on a shared map? Right? And player acts that aren't covered by game mechanics are still SP so long as they also engage granularly with the fiction. Is that all correct? As a player, I can't just say "I persuaded the priest" because that would be akin to rolling Charisma (Persuasion); instead I have to say how I persuade the priest. It would still be SP if I were then asked to roll Charisma (Persuasion) - or make an attack roll, or a Strength check, etc - and at that point it wouldn't matter that I have some mechanical advantage on such checks. I just want to be really clear on something: when it comes to engaging with the fiction, the DM decides if that succeeds or fails, right? We've already said that it isn't about rules - there aren't rules for succeeding of failing - it is about the fiction and the fiction is separable from rules. So when I say how I persuade the priest, it is up to the DM to say if that works. Thus what is referred to is a blend of boardgame-moves that can be resolved mechanically, and language-moves that are resolved by the DM. And players shouldn't use boardgame-moves to skip language-moves: that's not SP. Does that equate with your definition? Anything left out, or added erroneously? [/QUOTE]

Verification