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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6197637" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This is perfectly well and good but it points out two areas of deep divergence between you and I with respect to our inclinations in gaming:1 - The primacy of logic in your games is about process simulation and world-building justification.  As such, you use these to facilitate predicates for your GMing.  The primacy of logic in my games is about genre emulation and "what makes for an engaging, conflict-charged scene."  My primacy may very well be secondary to you just as your primacy is secondary to me.  I want a coherent world, of course, but the primary source of theatre/conflict/engagement for myself is zoomed in to the scene level and what is happening "on screen."  Everything else is subordinate to that consideration.2 - From a philosophical perspective, I do not consider elites to be anywhere near as secure as you do.  Further, I don't believe that the infrastructure, in any era, supports the level of sound security that you extoll as means to satisfy your thesis; adjudication favoring the presupposition of all manner of knowledge, built-in failsafes and contingencies.  As such, any consistent ruling on such grounds, for the sake of fidelity to simulation of process, is extremely tenuous for me.  Power brokers, power organizations have historically had an extraordinary level of vulnerability and fragility built into their existence/machines.  I consider that just 50 years ago, the most powerful man in the world was murdered by a lone gunman (of very average intellect and extraordinary mental instability), with a 6.5 mm Carcano model rifle from the 5th floor of the Texas School Book Depository building.  It is difficult for me to square GM-forced circumvention of Charm on a chamberlain on the basis of fidelity to process-sim's expectation of the "infallible security" of a King's infrastructure.  Whats more, as per 1, I'm less concerned with fidelity to that model (even if I was moved by its accuracy) than I am fidelity to genre.  Is it reasonable to expect Wizards to ensorcell their words with magic honey and successfully manipulate a steward (etc) in High Fantasy Action/Adventure?  Sure.  Just as I expect its reasonable to expect Fighters to "enfighterate" their axe into a giant, separating his head from his body.  The problem (the point of the thread) lies with the ruleset facilitating Wizards doing the former and the latter (and then some) while Fighters can only do the former.</blockquote>

Verification