Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Baron Opal II" data-source="post: 8994630" data-attributes="member: 6794067">I think they all do. It is a possible response to a failed roll. Not every one, but it is a response depending on the situation.In all of your threads, you contrast two overall schemes: Map-and-Key vs. Narrative. A strength of the Narrative system type is that they are more specific in GM responses when PC characters fail / near miss / &quot;Yes, but&quot;, &amp;c. Here is a scheme to turn a failure into a story point. Here is a scheme to allow PC access to meta-currency based on their needs and behaviors. Here is a way to have gradations of success to allow you to introduce interesting narrative complications.Map-and-Key tend to not have these specific schemes. They are more focused on abilities and rules to overcome challenges. The narrative grows not through deliberate or opportunistic beats but through clever use of mechanics and the vagaries of the dice. In my opinion, the best of these map-and-key games have emergent properties that can be discovered that facilitate play but don't overwhelm it. The difference between an emergent property and an exploit, if you will.Having defined, or granular if you wish, abilities is not a detriment in of itself. The process of learning how to GM with granular rules could be instructed better, but I think determining how a group of NPCs will react is very close to the process of deciding how a group of PCs would act. Determining how may casters are in a group of NPCs is something the GM will have to derive from what the rules have mentioned and the aspects of worldbuilding / setting construction that apply.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Baron Opal II, post: 8994630, member: 6794067"] I think they all do. It is a possible response to a failed roll. Not every one, but it is a response depending on the situation. In all of your threads, you contrast two overall schemes: Map-and-Key vs. Narrative. A strength of the Narrative system type is that they are more specific in GM responses when PC characters fail / near miss / "Yes, but", &c. Here is a scheme to turn a failure into a story point. Here is a scheme to allow PC access to meta-currency based on their needs and behaviors. Here is a way to have gradations of success to allow you to introduce interesting narrative complications. Map-and-Key tend to not have these specific schemes. They are more focused on abilities and rules to overcome challenges. The narrative grows not through deliberate or opportunistic beats but through clever use of mechanics and the vagaries of the dice. In my opinion, the best of these map-and-key games have emergent properties that can be discovered that facilitate play but don't overwhelm it. The difference between an emergent property and an exploit, if you will. Having defined, or granular if you wish, abilities is not a detriment in of itself. The process of learning how to GM with granular rules could be instructed better, but I think determining how a group of NPCs will react is very close to the process of deciding how a group of PCs would act. Determining how may casters are in a group of NPCs is something the GM will have to derive from what the rules have mentioned and the aspects of worldbuilding / setting construction that apply. [/QUOTE]

Verification