Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3530390" data-attributes="member: 22882">So, essentially, all game systems are ultimately beholden to randomized results (Chess begs to differ; so does Amber Diceless), all game systems are inherently lethal (Monopoly begs to differ; so does Toon), and all random lethality produces undesirable results.  The last, at least, is a matter of personal taste; the others are simply wrong.  Eruditely stated and re-stated, dressed in the full flowery prose of RPG theory - but simply, factually, wrong.If "all game systems" translates roughly to "RPGs you've played," you may be correct.  Fortunately, the latter is a subset of the former, not synonymous with it.Your statement fails on a factual level as soon as you realize that there are games in which chance does not play a part.  In an arbitrarily large number of chess games, a rook will never, ever do something a queen could not.  In an arbitrarily large number of collaborative storytelling games, events will never, ever transpire without player consent.It also fails when chance plays a very small part.  In an arbitrarily large number of Final Fantasy games, a creature that does 0 damage on a critical will never, ever kill a PC, and a PC that can kill a creature in one hit with a spell regardless of damage variance will always do so.It also fails when narrative controls are distributed among the participants.  In an arbitrarily large number of games in which players begin play with a narrative resource they can expend to narrate events, a PC will never, ever go down to a mook unless his player chooses to allow it.It also fails when the participants do not consider the range of probability allowed by the game unacceptable.  In an arbitrarily larger number tactical wargames in which victory is not assured but competition is, a player will never, ever have cause to complain if the end result of fair use of the system is not him winning.To address another of your statements that is, frankly, factually wrong:Once again, well said - and wrong.The games in question do not 'hand out points that let you fudge the rules.'  As a part of the rules, they state: "Here is a resource that lets you decide what happens.  Spend Wisely."  This is not 'fudging' the rules, it's using a part of the rules in the intended manner.  Just because in a traditional RPG, this function would be restricted to the GM and the GM could do it an unlimited number of times does not mean it's the same thing.Narrative mechanics are limited by the rules.  They say what the mechanic does, when and how you can use it.  They, like spells in D&D or money in Monopoly, are an expendable resource that renews in a set way within the rules, and provide a set result.You can abuse a narrative mechanic, failing to mark off uses or account for points spent (although the usually dramatic results can make this challenging), but if you do so, you are CHEATING.GM fiat is limited by nothing (except the players' ability to walk away from the table).Here's a simple test to demonstrate the difference:You can insert a narrative mechanic identical to the one I described above into any pure, competitive wargame in which chance plays a factor - Star Wars Minis, for example, or Warhammer.  In that context, each player would likely get an equal number of Narrative Points, or could purchase them in the same way as purchasing more figures.  You could spend those points to simply DECLARE a result - my Darth Vader, Jedi Hunter DOES crit your Yoda, Jedi Master, or your High Elf Archers all miss my Night Goblin Spearmen.  As long as the points were even (or could be bought at the same cost), then the game would remain competitive.You could not insert fiat into the same system without removing the competitivness.  If you tried, the player who had fiat could simply declare "I win" in every game; if he played the game out, it would be ONLY as a courtesy to the other player or to "see what happens."  If the player with fiat won, it would be suspect.  If the player without fiat won, it would be only at the sufferance of the one who had it.</blockquote>

Verification