Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Professor Phobos" data-source="post: 4040992" data-attributes="member: 18883">Well, you should have mentioned that in the example! What was the DM's problem, then?Oh, sure. If I'm playing a game detailed enough that a cold rain has some kind of effect I want to avoid, my reaction will be based on that. But that doesn't mean I won't react to a cold rain without mechanical backup, so to speak, which is what I thought you were talking about.Well, naturally, but if you want to play a game like Dogs, Dogs is an excellent choice. It exchanges versatility for focus.That sounds like a great session, especially since I was going to bring in a very similar example to prove my point. Which strikes me as indicating we may be talking past each other...But, back to the initial example, the knight breaking his neck is entirely within the framework of and consistent with the universe. It's completely believable by those guidelines- if I describe a world of mortal men, accidents, misery, disease, mud, rats and sinking boats, then why would anyone not believe in High King Badass getting spilled by his horse and landing bad?But by your standard, since it contradicts the mechanics, it isn't believable. What we are trying to say is that the mechanics are not the only determining factor for believability and consistency; indeed sticking to them as literally the laws of physics conjures enormous problems with regard to a believable world. The purpose of mechanics is not to create a world, or a basis for which a world can be derived. Mechanics are designed for game play purposes. They're designed for fairness. Tactical interest. Ease of use. Speed. Things of that nature. They're not designed, nor are they capable of, simulating a fictional world.For that you need an intelligent arbiter (or a group of them, in a shared-narrative style) to describe the world beyond the mechanics, how the mechanics relate to the world and what they represent, if anything.</blockquote>

Verification