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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6201161" data-attributes="member: 6681948">Quite right - just as characters might try to get in to see the King, lacking the understanding that the King does not normally receive any and all who wish to come before him.  Now, a PC with a decent Knowledge Arcana roll would likely know that even a recently hatched Dragon would be a potent threat to their abilities, but then one with some Knowledge: Nobility would likely know how unlikely it is that they can simply walk into the Chamberlain's office and be granted an audience with the King.  In both cases, we are advising the players, indirectly through character knowledge, that what they are asking for is not viable with the resources they currently have.  The possibility that an audience with the King is beyond their resources, however seems unacceptable under the interpretation taken of "Indie" play, while it seems perfectly all right to place the Dragon out of their reach, a difference which has not been explained.Both viable in my view.  However, they violate the maxim of "Story Now" we are presented with under the "Indie" model as presented.  Just as an encounter with a courtesan, rather than the desired Chamberlain, is dismissed by the "Indie model" posters.But coming back to the Chamberlain, this seems equivalent to him being so difficult to persuade that the party simply cannot succeed at this task.  We are now not permitting [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] to meaningfully access the abilities his character has been provided "by the rules", and as such we are again in violation of the requirements of "Indie" play.That would be why @permerton doesn't know what to do at this point.  He is unwilling to apply the tools of his Indie game to override verisimilitude to the extent required to allow these humble novices to have any real possibility of success in engaging the Dragon.  For some reason, this is more damaging to verisimilitude than allowing them a reasonable (I think 60% more or less being the 4e rule cited) possibility of being granted an audience with the King.Maybe the King can be persuaded to give us the arms, armaments, training and allies we need to kill the Dragon?  Presumably, we must have a chance at persuading him, just as we must have a chance to persuade the Chamberlain, but I'm unclear why that doesn't extend to a similar chance at defeating the Dragon.  Perhaps we have Indie play for interaction and exploration, but revert to wargame style when it comes to combat.  That seems a more apt description of the examples we've seen to date, as only non-combat efforts seem to be resolved in this manner.Which isn't dissimilar to classic wargame style (common to early editions with no mechanics for social skills - just role play it - mechanics happen in combat) or storyteller style (where the results are predetermined, so roll with it, yet we generally still play out combat with all its mechanics).I've suggested in the past, more in Hero than in d20, the possibility of an expanded resolution system for those conflicts most relevant to the specific game, and a simplified system for ancillary matters.  In traditional D&D play, that means a very detailed, granular combat system (which is how most conflict is resolved) and a much simpler, more abstract skill system for other areas, like interaction.  However, for a Court of the King Drama, perhaps social interaction should be detailed at a similar level to combat, and combat gets relegated to a few opposed roll skills like "Dueling" and "Brawling", as these will not be the key conflicts in this game.  I don't see that as a "wargame/storyteller/Indie" distinction so much as a game focus distinction.  Any of the three styles could focus more on political intrigue than on open warfare, and political intrigue lacks the same granular resolution model combat possesses.  Some "Indie" games (Heroquest, for example) relegate all challenges to the same resolution system(s), but my general experience is that they make combat much less granular, and offer the potential for the other areas to become just a bit more granular, with all becoming quite abstract - necessary if we are to use the same system to resolve single combat, mass combat, courtroom drama, political intrigue, a medical drama, courtship, debates, research and dozens of other conflicts in an identical manner.</blockquote>

Verification