Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3983452" data-attributes="member: 6777">Well, first off, intent-relevance isn't just about using checks to avoid RP'ing thing to death. It's about, well, making sure the player's intent is addressed by the check. As to how to make use of checks, the RPG Dogs in the Vineyard coined an important phrase: &quot;Say, yes or roll the dice.&quot; I.e., if there's no conflict over an issue (&quot;Is there a candlestick nearby?&quot;), then you can often just say, &quot;Sure, there's a candlestick on the table.&quot; The dice come out when there's uncertainty or conflict, e.g., &quot;Can I steal the candlestick without waking up the baker's dog?&quot;As for being explicit about this in the rulebook, I think it's a good idea. Better to explain how to run the game than assume the reader will just &quot;figure it out.&quot; You can read a metric ton of accounts of bad game sessions on gaming fora that revolve around people who don't just figure this stuff out.It'll depend on the game. Burning Wheel has a very detailed combat system (though you don't always need to use it if the combat isn't a big plot point) that involves a lot of strategy and blow-by-blow action. Games like Dogs in the Vineyard and The Shadow of Yesterday don't have separate systems for physical combat; a conflict is a conflict. However, they do let you break down any conflict into multiple steps (in Dogs, it's always that way). I.e., you're not always just making one roll to see if Sir Kevin defeats the dragon. If that event is important, you break it down step-by-step.For an example, you can look to the <a href="http://tsoy.crngames.com/Resolution" target="_blank">The Shadow of Yesterday rules wiki section on resolution</a>. The whole text of the game is available there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 3983452, member: 6777"] Well, first off, intent-relevance isn't just about using checks to avoid RP'ing thing to death. It's about, well, making sure the player's intent is addressed by the check. As to how to make use of checks, the RPG [i]Dogs in the Vineyard[/i] coined an important phrase: "Say, yes or roll the dice." I.e., if there's no conflict over an issue ("Is there a candlestick nearby?"), then you can often just say, "Sure, there's a candlestick on the table." The dice come out when there's uncertainty or conflict, e.g., "Can I steal the candlestick without waking up the baker's dog?" As for being explicit about this in the rulebook, I think it's a good idea. Better to explain how to run the game than assume the reader will just "figure it out." You can read a metric ton of accounts of bad game sessions on gaming fora that revolve around people who don't just figure this stuff out. It'll depend on the game. [i]Burning Wheel[/i] has a very detailed combat system (though you don't always need to use it if the combat isn't a big plot point) that involves a lot of strategy and blow-by-blow action. Games like [i]Dogs in the Vineyard[/i] and [i]The Shadow of Yesterday[/i] don't have separate systems for physical combat; a conflict is a conflict. However, they do let you break down any conflict into multiple steps (in [i]Dogs[/i], it's always that way). I.e., you're not always just making one roll to see if Sir Kevin defeats the dragon. If that event is important, you break it down step-by-step. For an example, you can look to the [url=http://tsoy.crngames.com/Resolution][i]The Shadow of Yesterday[/i] rules wiki section on resolution[/url]. The whole text of the game is available there. [/QUOTE]

Verification