Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6070099" data-attributes="member: 42582">Characters can do whatever their players want them to do. But there is nothing obliging the players to push or explore the economic aspect of the world - it's part of some games (eg Burning Wheel) but not others (eg 4e). Likewise in some games exploring politial aspects of the world is central (eg in most of my games) but in others it is not (eg that's my impression of a certain sort of dungeon-delving game).That depends a lot on the table. I gave an express counterexample - where the player knows that something big is at stake, by inferring from obvious narrative cues, whereas the PC, being genre-blind within the fiction, doesn't and can't know.No, the fighter doesn't know. The fighter will think about the one great attack that they just pulled off a successful and/or lucky manoeuvre. How did the fighter do it - using his/her fighting skill  [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] has discussed some of the details of this upthread). Why doesn't s/he try to do it again? Of course s/he does! Just as, every time, s/he is attempting a critical hit. But not every attempt succeeds.I don't see why that's bizarre. (Though I don't agree that making a basci attack is completely explained within the context of the gameworld - what does a basic attack represent? A swing at the head? The legs? Or what of the other permutations [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] described above.)I've explained why. Because they're metagame powers. (And I'm not even sure that what you say is true for spell-using PCs. It's true for a 3E wizard, who prepares spells, but it's not obvious to me that it's true for a 3E sorcerer.)I don't see how metagame can be a bridge too far, but you're advocating radical changes to hit points!I agree, more or less, about the role of RPG rules. But I don't undertstand what the evidence is for the second paragraph that I've quoted.Here are three process-based games - Runequest, Rolemaster, and the combat-manouevre aspect of 3E/PF (the core hit point mechanic is not process-based).Here are three outcome-based games - HERO, HeroWars/Quest, Over the Edge.What is the evidence that RQ, RM or 3E/PF is more open-ended and less limiting than HERO, HW/Q or OtE? I don't know of any. In fact, I think it's highly arguable that the latter set of games is more open-ended and less-limiting.Either way they're game rules. There's nothing more "real" about process-simulation rules than "plot care" rules. As per your characterisation I've quoted above, they're just different devices for limiting and channelling the conflicts of freeform roleplaying. A narration of a dead orc is a narration of a dead orc, whatever the mechanical process that led to a game particfpant being authorised to undertake that act of narration.This depends on other features of design. For instance, 4e is designed so that (i) the typical combat lasts 4 to 6 rounds, and (ii) many if not all of those rounds will be "high-leverage". In a different approach, Burning Wheel is designed so that, if a combat encounter is not "high-leverage", then the resolution doesn't use the full combat rules, but one of a couple of simple, single-roll resolution methods.BW's Faith rules might be an example. Faith (for those characters with the Faithful trait) is rated like any other ability. Miracles are defined at a range of difficulty levels. Using faith requires the player to speak (in character) an appropriate prayer, and then succeeding at a Faith check at the appropriate difficulty. Retries are regulated under BW's general "Let it Ride" rule (ie no retries unless the situation dramaticaly changes). And failed attempts allow the GM to narrate some adverse consequence for the PC who has frivolously tried to invoke the powers of the heavens (as the designer puts it, "I'm sure the average GM will have no trouble playing god once in a while").</blockquote>

Verification