Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4040914" data-attributes="member: 4937">Oh don't even go there with me.&nbsp; I don't know how many hundreds of times I've been accused on this board of advocating a referee stance which is unfair to the players.&nbsp; I just earlier in the thread agreed that the DM has the authority to change the rules on the fly without even informing the players.&nbsp; I don't think its a very good idea, but he certainly has the authority.&nbsp; So let's not try to make an argument by generalizing my stance and creating a sterotype.Absolutely.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; Everything doesn't need to be represented mechanically, but you'd do well to represent things that are mechanical mechanically.It has nothing to do with bad roleplaying, so don't try to create a strawman.&nbsp; Narrativists aren't the only good roleplayers.&nbsp; I've known alot of gamists who are fabulous roleplayers if the DM just feeds them the right information.&nbsp; You don't always get to pick and choose the roleplaying style of your friends, nor do you necessarily get players that are comfortable moving between styles.&nbsp; Sometimes you have to accomodate several different styles of gamers at the same table.I don't care what it sounds like to you.&nbsp; You are just sterotyping.&nbsp; Just because I have mechanical consistancy doesn't mean that I can't be evocative and flavorful.&nbsp; I've already presented one example of being evocative and flavorful while being mechanically consistant.&nbsp; I'm plenty capable of doing more.You simply don't get it, so let me try to explain things in narrativist terms.&nbsp; Consider a game like DiTV and how it would handle marching in the cold.&nbsp; What's at stake?&nbsp; &quot;Do we manage to walk all the way to Pleasantville?&quot;&nbsp; Roleplaying well, the player describes his attempt to walk to Pleasantville.&nbsp; Describing the situation evocatively, the referee says, &quot;It is a cold and wet journey.&quot;&nbsp; But if the referee doesn't put out a stake, if he doesn't raise, if doesn't mechanically challenge the players decision to walk to Pleasantville, for all practical purposes its not really cold and wet.&nbsp; When you say, &quot;Its cold and wet&quot;, and the player says in effect, &quot;Alright... We continue to march on doggedly&quot;, and you say, &quot;You aren't roleplaying right.&quot;, you are wrong.&nbsp; The RPer is playing correctly because you haven't put any stake out.&nbsp; The cold and wet isn't actually real.&nbsp; Not until you put your stake out of something like, 'If you march in the cold and wet you will be fatigued and take 1d6 non-lethal damage per hour', are you really asking the player to make a dramatic choice.&nbsp; At that point the cold is actually real.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4040914, member: 4937"] Oh don't even go there with me. I don't know how many hundreds of times I've been accused on this board of advocating a referee stance which is unfair to the players. I just earlier in the thread agreed that the DM has the authority to change the rules on the fly without even informing the players. I don't think its a very good idea, but he certainly has the authority. So let's not try to make an argument by generalizing my stance and creating a sterotype. Absolutely. So what? Everything doesn't need to be represented mechanically, but you'd do well to represent things that are mechanical mechanically. It has nothing to do with bad roleplaying, so don't try to create a strawman. Narrativists aren't the only good roleplayers. I've known alot of gamists who are fabulous roleplayers if the DM just feeds them the right information. You don't always get to pick and choose the roleplaying style of your friends, nor do you necessarily get players that are comfortable moving between styles. Sometimes you have to accomodate several different styles of gamers at the same table. I don't care what it sounds like to you. You are just sterotyping. Just because I have mechanical consistancy doesn't mean that I can't be evocative and flavorful. I've already presented one example of being evocative and flavorful while being mechanically consistant. I'm plenty capable of doing more. You simply don't get it, so let me try to explain things in narrativist terms. Consider a game like DiTV and how it would handle marching in the cold. What's at stake? "Do we manage to walk all the way to Pleasantville?" Roleplaying well, the player describes his attempt to walk to Pleasantville. Describing the situation evocatively, the referee says, "It is a cold and wet journey." But if the referee doesn't put out a stake, if he doesn't raise, if doesn't mechanically challenge the players decision to walk to Pleasantville, for all practical purposes its not really cold and wet. When you say, "Its cold and wet", and the player says in effect, "Alright... We continue to march on doggedly", and you say, "You aren't roleplaying right.", you are wrong. The RPer is playing correctly because you haven't put any stake out. The cold and wet isn't actually real. Not until you put your stake out of something like, 'If you march in the cold and wet you will be fatigued and take 1d6 non-lethal damage per hour', are you really asking the player to make a dramatic choice. At that point the cold is actually real. [/QUOTE]

Verification