Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Composer99" data-source="post: 9596874" data-attributes="member: 7030042">I read [USER=4937]@Celebrim[/USER]'s statement on &quot;fudging&quot; with respect to PbtA-style games as referring to when a player character makes a Move and the result of the die roll requires the GM/facilitator to make some kind of Move in response, where what that looks like within the fiction are largely within the GM/facilitator's purview, subject to constraints imposed by the rules of the game on the GM/facilitator. I hope Celebrim can clarify if I've misunderstood.That does seem to me to be a rather idiosyncratic definition of &quot;fudging&quot;, which usually involves ignoring the outcome of a die roll.[HR][/HR]Apropos of the main topic, it seems to me that what I enjoy most about rules-heaviness when playing D&amp;D 5e and 4e is the presence of game-mechanical aspects in and of themselves. I don't want rules as drivers of world-simulation; what I want is the &quot;gamification&quot; experience that game mechanics provide.The sorts of rules that enhance this kind of experience are player character abilities, as well as procedural/process rules that structure play so as to (a) move play forward through the fiction and (b) force me to make decisions that I find interesting or compelling.Rules-light games, as a rule, also have reasonable quantity of player character abilities, such as playbooks in PbtA-style games, and processes of play that have the same effect as detailed in the above paragraph, so to my mind what I find enjoyable is, specifically, the explicit &quot;game-ness&quot; of the rules-heavy play experience.That is, what is satisfying about a D&amp;D combat, as opposed to conflict resolution mechanics in lighter systems? Part of it is simply the leveraging of mechanics in and of themselves, by breaking the conflict out into structured procedures with highly granular outcome resolution.That is not to everyone's tastes; well and good.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Composer99, post: 9596874, member: 7030042"] I read [USER=4937]@Celebrim[/USER]'s statement on "fudging" with respect to PbtA-style games as referring to when a player character makes a Move and the result of the die roll requires the GM/facilitator to make some kind of Move in response, where what that looks like within the fiction are largely within the GM/facilitator's purview, subject to constraints imposed by the rules of the game on the GM/facilitator. I hope Celebrim can clarify if I've misunderstood. That does seem to me to be a rather idiosyncratic definition of "fudging", which usually involves [I]ignoring[/I] the outcome of a die roll. [HR][/HR] Apropos of the main topic, it seems to me that what I enjoy most about rules-heaviness when playing D&D 5e and 4e is the presence of game-mechanical aspects [I]in and of themselves[/I]. I don't want rules as drivers of world-simulation; what I want is the "gamification" experience that game mechanics provide. The sorts of rules that enhance this kind of experience are player character abilities, as well as procedural/process rules that structure play so as to (a) move play forward through the fiction and (b) force me to make decisions that I find interesting or compelling. Rules-light games, as a rule, also have reasonable quantity of player character abilities, such as playbooks in PbtA-style games, and processes of play that have the same effect as detailed in the above paragraph, so to my mind what I find enjoyable is, specifically, the explicit "game-ness" of the rules-heavy play experience. That is, what is satisfying about a D&D combat, as opposed to conflict resolution mechanics in lighter systems? Part of it is simply the [I]leveraging of mechanics[/I] in and of themselves, by breaking the conflict out into structured procedures with highly granular outcome resolution. That is not to everyone's tastes; well and good. [/QUOTE]

Verification