Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6071019" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think it has one feature that differentiates it from &quot;traditional&quot; mother may I - namely, the DC and damage rules which are non-arbitrarily mechnically integrated with the numbers on the players' PC sheets.This enables the players to have a certain confidence in their prospects of success that are absent in a more traditional approach.(Of course, this feature doesn't change it into player fiat - I don't regard Page 42 as a system for player fiat. But I do regard it as a system that supports player agency, because of the mechanical feature that I have identified.)I looked for Marvel in late December but couldn't find it at the local games shop or the local comic shop.The less that operational/tactical adversity is a feature of play, the less the significance of the GM having ultimate say over terrain and the like. I would expect a super hero game to be a bit different from 4e in this respect.Burning Wheel combines both approaches: it expects the GM to exercise overall authority over the ingame situation, but has a range of abilities that players are expected to use to create new facts within the fiction. The discussion in the Adventure Burner (the GM's guide for that system, and a much later book than its core rulebook) of how to handle this aspect of the game shows that some issues of the sort LostSoul is interested in have come up in play: tensions between the GM's role in providing adversity, and the interest of the player in using his/her resources to minimise adversity, including by changing/adding to the fiction using the relevant abilities.Is it easy to describe how Marvel Cortex handles this to someone who doesn't know the system?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6071019, member: 42582"] I think it has one feature that differentiates it from "traditional" mother may I - namely, the DC and damage rules which are non-arbitrarily mechnically integrated with the numbers on the players' PC sheets. This enables the players to have a certain confidence in their prospects of success that are absent in a more traditional approach. (Of course, this feature doesn't change it into player fiat - I don't regard Page 42 as a system for player fiat. But I do regard it as a system that supports player agency, because of the mechanical feature that I have identified.) I looked for Marvel in late December but couldn't find it at the local games shop or the local comic shop. The less that operational/tactical adversity is a feature of play, the less the significance of the GM having ultimate say over terrain and the like. I would expect a super hero game to be a bit different from 4e in this respect. Burning Wheel combines both approaches: it expects the GM to exercise overall authority over the ingame situation, but has a range of abilities that players are expected to use to create new facts within the fiction. The discussion in the Adventure Burner (the GM's guide for that system, and a much later book than its core rulebook) of how to handle this aspect of the game shows that some issues of the sort LostSoul is interested in have come up in play: tensions between the GM's role in providing adversity, and the interest of the player in using his/her resources to minimise adversity, including by changing/adding to the fiction using the relevant abilities. Is it easy to describe how Marvel Cortex handles this to someone who doesn't know the system? [/QUOTE]

Verification