Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6189092" data-attributes="member: 6696971">- Martial character 1's primary form of conflict resolution is combat.&nbsp; The PC build mechanics say he has n offense, and n defense.&nbsp; He engages in 10 combats to resolve an n conflict.&nbsp; His n (offense) and n (defense) meets the resolution mechanics and he fails 2 out of 10 times after engaging in his primary form of conflict resolution; combat.-&nbsp; Martial character 2's primary form of conflict resolution is combat.&nbsp; The PC build mechanics say he has n + 2 defense, and n + 2 offense.&nbsp; He engages in 10 combats to resolve an n conflict.&nbsp; His n + 2 (offense) and n + 2 (defense) meets the resolution mechanics and he fails 0 out of 10 times after engaging in his primary form of conflict resolution; combat.- Spellcaster character 1's has no primary form of conflict resolution.&nbsp; In any one scenario it could be a myriad of approaches.&nbsp; The PC build mechanics say that during conflict resolution he can deploy 1 or more spells that circumvent the standard resolution mechanics that Martial characters 1 and 2 interface with.&nbsp; They are effectively strategic trump cards that either automatically win or are the equivalent of n + 10 resources that interface with non-standard resolution mechanics (eg Spell Resistance system).&nbsp; Like Martial character 2, he wins 10 out of 10 times in conflicts varying from social to overt combat to assymetrical warfare (of which he dictates the terms of engagement).How is story effectiveness not mechanical?&nbsp; If the resolution mechanics are utterly circumvented and drowned out by GM fiat, then yes, the authenticity of a player's build mechanics and their strategic and tactical decisions are indeed rendered irrelevant.&nbsp; However, assuming that GM fiat is not the driver of outcomes, then how is story effectiveness not, at least in part (another part if the fog of fortune resolution and another part is acumen of tactical and strategic decision-making), driven mechanically?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6189092, member: 6696971"] - Martial character 1's primary form of conflict resolution is combat. The PC build mechanics say he has n offense, and n defense. He engages in 10 combats to resolve an n conflict. His n (offense) and n (defense) meets the resolution mechanics and he fails 2 out of 10 times after engaging in his primary form of conflict resolution; combat. - Martial character 2's primary form of conflict resolution is combat. The PC build mechanics say he has n + 2 defense, and n + 2 offense. He engages in 10 combats to resolve an n conflict. His n + 2 (offense) and n + 2 (defense) meets the resolution mechanics and he fails 0 out of 10 times after engaging in his primary form of conflict resolution; combat. - Spellcaster character 1's has no primary form of conflict resolution. In any one scenario it could be a myriad of approaches. The PC build mechanics say that during conflict resolution he can deploy 1 or more spells that circumvent the standard resolution mechanics that Martial characters 1 and 2 interface with. They are effectively strategic trump cards that either automatically win or are the equivalent of n + 10 resources that interface with non-standard resolution mechanics (eg Spell Resistance system). Like Martial character 2, he wins 10 out of 10 times in conflicts varying from social to overt combat to assymetrical warfare (of which he dictates the terms of engagement). How is story effectiveness not mechanical? If the resolution mechanics are utterly circumvented and drowned out by GM fiat, then yes, the authenticity of a player's build mechanics and their strategic and tactical decisions are indeed rendered irrelevant. However, assuming that GM fiat is not the driver of outcomes, then how is story effectiveness not, at least in part (another part if the fog of fortune resolution and another part is acumen of tactical and strategic decision-making), driven mechanically? [/QUOTE]

Verification