Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8614807" data-attributes="member: 71699">When the ants bit M, I narrated biteyly. That fit the fiction and the mechanics. Hit points helped us track the accumulation of bites over time. All the mechanics ever tell me is to decrement some values, maybe apply an ongoing or deferred effect or condition. There can be words associated with that. What I am asking is why it matters that the game designers pre-authored those words.Concretely, are you saying that if Arms Law or RQ did not have the pre-authored words - but were unaltered mechanically - they would stop being simulationist? That's an okay thing to say - I'm not criticising it - I'm just asking if you can define why adding the pre-authored words back into those mechanics changes things?Not entirely invented, no. We always said what followed. That's a point you keep ignoring. When M lost 5 HP as a result of an ant biting M we said something that followed: enflamed, torn skin etc. Now you could say that the enflamed, torn skin had to have ongoing consequences. But if you don't want to say that, then your pre-authored narrative is no more meaningful than a horse braying.Thre is other information there because the 5HP is lost in context. It's not &quot;Oh, look at that, I suddenly have 5 fewer HP&quot;. It's &quot;Have at you varlet, and that, yes! What, no, ouch - she thrusts a fork in my bicep you say?&quot; So we have the information of the attack roll, the damage roll, the weapon being used, the intent it was used with, and the fiction we wove on the fly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8614807, member: 71699"] When the ants bit M, I narrated biteyly. That fit the fiction and the mechanics. Hit points helped us track the accumulation of bites over time. All the mechanics ever tell me is to decrement some values, maybe apply an ongoing or deferred effect or condition. There can be words associated with that. What I am asking is why it matters that the game designers pre-authored those words. Concretely, are you saying that if Arms Law or RQ did not have the pre-authored words - but were unaltered mechanically - they would stop being simulationist? That's an okay thing to say - I'm not criticising it - I'm just asking if you can define why adding the pre-authored words back into those mechanics changes things? Not entirely invented, no. We always said what followed. That's a point you keep ignoring. When M lost 5 HP as a result of an ant biting M we said something that followed: enflamed, torn skin etc. Now you could say that the enflamed, torn skin had to have ongoing consequences. But if you don't want to say that, then your pre-authored narrative is no more meaningful than a horse braying. Thre is other information there because the 5HP is lost in context. It's not "[I]Oh, look at that, I suddenly have 5 fewer HP[/I]". It's "[I]Have at you varlet, and that, yes! What, no, ouch - she thrusts a fork in my bicep you say?[/I]" So we have the information of the attack roll, the damage roll, the weapon being used, the intent it was used with, and the fiction we wove on the fly. [/QUOTE]

Verification