Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8251161" data-attributes="member: 82106">I guess what I'm saying is that a game like AW has a process for doing that sort of activity. It just focuses on the politics and social aspects, and maybe some general &quot;how do I get resources&quot; problem-solving. It won't contain any mechanics for 'medical knowledge', for example, as a specific thing. Whereas a game like T2000 probably has almost nothing BUT those sorts of rules, that is the rules address specific technical and knowledge skills, plus how to employ equipment and resources to solving that problem. In neither system would something like that necessarily be a 'single die roll'. They just emphasize very different things. I mean, this off-topic of the thread, so I don't want to get into a long discussion of RPG design or history of design particularly. Suffice it to say that the structure of &quot;what will be the focus of play&quot; and &quot;how will the focus of action be decided&quot; are likely to be very different. Early 80's RPG design had not yet really invented 'story focused play' techniques comparable to the kinds of things that PbtA games use, for instance. They were focused on 'procedure' in terms of applying rules to situations such that game rules and structures could be applied to the process to, for example, decide that you need 'medic' to cure an infected wound, and that an anti-biotic adds a given modifier to the chance of it working. Each of those elements would probably be specified by a GM or a write-up of an adventure, or inventory sheets of PCs. In a PbtA game it would most likely be an element of play that would come into the fiction as an explanation for the use of a 'move' in the game, although the challenge (IE a wound and an infection) would probably be imposed by the GM as part of the consequences of past actions, but not by any rules more specific than &quot;things have consequences and you now deserve one.&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8251161, member: 82106"] I guess what I'm saying is that a game like AW has a process for doing that sort of activity. It just focuses on the politics and social aspects, and maybe some general "how do I get resources" problem-solving. It won't contain any mechanics for 'medical knowledge', for example, as a specific thing. Whereas a game like T2000 probably has almost nothing BUT those sorts of rules, that is the rules address specific technical and knowledge skills, plus how to employ equipment and resources to solving that problem. In neither system would something like that necessarily be a 'single die roll'. They just emphasize very different things. I mean, this off-topic of the thread, so I don't want to get into a long discussion of RPG design or history of design particularly. Suffice it to say that the structure of "what will be the focus of play" and "how will the focus of action be decided" are likely to be very different. Early 80's RPG design had not yet really invented 'story focused play' techniques comparable to the kinds of things that PbtA games use, for instance. They were focused on 'procedure' in terms of applying rules to situations such that game rules and structures could be applied to the process to, for example, decide that you need 'medic' to cure an infected wound, and that an anti-biotic adds a given modifier to the chance of it working. Each of those elements would probably be specified by a GM or a write-up of an adventure, or inventory sheets of PCs. In a PbtA game it would most likely be an element of play that would come into the fiction as an explanation for the use of a 'move' in the game, although the challenge (IE a wound and an infection) would probably be imposed by the GM as part of the consequences of past actions, but not by any rules more specific than "things have consequences and you now deserve one." [/QUOTE]

Verification