Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8614677" data-attributes="member: 22779">mmm, not really.&nbsp; Well, I suppose, you're always going to have the real world as some sort of reference because most games take place in worlds that are pretty close to the real world.&nbsp; It would be really hard to play a 4th dimensional RPG after all since most of us aren't mathemeticians.&nbsp; Or a 2D flatworld RPG would also be difficult.&nbsp; Fun, but, difficult.&nbsp; So, yeah, you're always going to have to baseline to something and the real world tends to be it.&nbsp; Not necessary.&nbsp; I'm tripping over the &quot;all&quot; in that sentence.&nbsp; That's a level of granularity that isn't necessary.&nbsp; Change that to any and we're on a good start.This I agree with.&nbsp; Or, at least enough granularity that we can exclude some descriptions in any case.&nbsp; If the character dodged the attack, for example, the exact narrative wouldn't be up to the mechanics, but, any narrative where the character actively avoided the attack would fit while any narrative in which the character did not actively avoid the attack would be excluded.This I agree with.Not sure I agree with this one.&nbsp; After all, as above, we don't need the mechanics to explain exactly what happened - just explain enough that we can definitively say This did and That did not happen.&nbsp; What This is is pretty broad though.No, I don't think that follows.&nbsp; Again, using the dodge example, you don't need any follow up to that.&nbsp; The character dodged the attack, avoided all harm, and now can act in any fashion.&nbsp; Like I keep repeating, the difference here is not full knowledge vs some knowledge, it's the mechanics guide the narrative vs the narrative is entirely divorced from the mechanics.&nbsp; As you say, empty fluff might as well be provided by the players.&nbsp; Which is generally what we do in D&amp;D because the narrative is almost always empty when it comes to combat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 8614677, member: 22779"] mmm, not really. Well, I suppose, you're always going to have the real world as some sort of reference because most games take place in worlds that are pretty close to the real world. It would be really hard to play a 4th dimensional RPG after all since most of us aren't mathemeticians. Or a 2D flatworld RPG would also be difficult. Fun, but, difficult. So, yeah, you're always going to have to baseline to something and the real world tends to be it. Not necessary. I'm tripping over the "all" in that sentence. That's a level of granularity that isn't necessary. Change that to any and we're on a good start. This I agree with. Or, at least enough granularity that we can exclude some descriptions in any case. If the character dodged the attack, for example, the exact narrative wouldn't be up to the mechanics, but, any narrative where the character actively avoided the attack would fit while any narrative in which the character did not actively avoid the attack would be excluded. This I agree with. Not sure I agree with this one. After all, as above, we don't need the mechanics to explain exactly what happened - just explain enough that we can definitively say This did and That did not happen. What This is is pretty broad though. No, I don't think that follows. Again, using the dodge example, you don't need any follow up to that. The character dodged the attack, avoided all harm, and now can act in any fashion. Like I keep repeating, the difference here is not full knowledge vs some knowledge, it's the mechanics guide the narrative vs the narrative is entirely divorced from the mechanics. As you say, empty fluff might as well be provided by the players. Which is generally what we do in D&D because the narrative is almost always empty when it comes to combat. [/QUOTE]

Verification