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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7742516" data-attributes="member: 42582">For me, this goes back to the "inhabitation" vs "portrayal" issue.What you say would make sense on a "portrayal" conception of RPGing. But by the same token, a "portrayal" conception doesn't seem to need combat mechanics of the D&D sort either - the GM could roll the attack die, narrate the deftness and/or force of the NPC's bladework, and then the player would choose whether or not s/he thinks the character s/he is portraying could dodge or withstand that blow, or rather suffer its force.But D&D mechanics don't work that way for combat, because they favour an "inhabitation" approach: the mechanics yield results that have implications for the player as a participant in the game (my game piece is being worn down) that mirror what is happening to the PC (I am being worn down).One example where the D&D mechanics seem to have trouble in relation to the "inhabitation"/"portrayal" contrast is falling damage: on an inhabitation model, a high level PC knows that s/he can safely jump 50' straight down - and that's how I play my PCs and would expect players in my game to play theirs - whereas others want this to be approached on a portrayal approach, where the player portrays someone afraid of the possibility of death from such a fall even though the player knows that there is no risk of death.I find the "portrayal" approach to falling damage rather insipid, and have the same view about that approach to social interaction: if I'm accepting the duke's proposal because that's how I feel I'm required to portray my PC, even though nothing in the actual situation as the game represents it to me is providing me with that signal, I find that a bit insipid. It's like I'm betraying my PC in pursuit of some impersonal goal of "appropriate portrayal". I prefer game mechanics that don't set up this sort of wedge between play expectation and game representation.I'll cheerfully agree that it can be harder to do that for social conflict than physical conflict - but I don't think that means it can't be done. And I also want to make it clear that I'm not talking about the GM taking over the PC (ie turning the PC into a NPC). I'm talking about how I want the game to represent my PC to me, which then feeds into how I play my PC because I am "inhabiting" him/her. (And because we're mostly talking about situations in which the PC is not initially disposed to go along with the NPC's request, that representation most of the time should probably capture some idea of reluctance, or hesitation, or compromise, or being in two minds, etc.) These representations the game makes to me might include penalties to, or even prohibition of or mandating of, certain actions (eg PCs in Classic Traveller who fail a morale check have extremely constrained action options); but they aren't the result of the GM taking over the PC, anymore than dropping to zero hp is. They're the result of the mechanical framework - and this is why a sound mechanical framework, which appropriately connects fictional situation, the place of the PC in that situation, and consequence, is fundamental.</blockquote>

Verification