Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4042628" data-attributes="member: 42582">KM, this post isn't meant to be antagonistic at all, because (after your response to my kobold vs 20th lvl question, and my question about &quot;cheating&quot;) I think I've got a pretty good handle on how you like to play, and (unlike some others on this thread) I don't think you're trying to say that other ways of playing can't be done.What I wanted to do was just pick up on a couple of your comments and say how a different playstyle might handle those issues:In the playstyle I'm trying to articulate, this can be handled not only through the action resolution mechanics, but via GM-player negotiation over the relevant parts of the gameworld (to put it crudely, &quot;say yes&quot; mechanics). Prof Phobos gave some examples way upthread involving town guards and skeletons. And John Snow gave another example by reference to Lois Lane conventions of play.That is, the playstyle I'm articulating is not interested in thwarting player autonomy. In fact, its principal aim is to enhance player autonomy. That's why I'm upbeat about 4e. Everything I've read about it (especially W&amp;M) seems to me to indicate the default assumption is far greater player control via various metagame mechanics and conventions.The gameworld involves more than this, agreed. Sometimes, the game does also - but I have to admit that when the PCs aren't adventuring it can drag a bit (by &quot;adventuring&quot; here I'm meaning the interesting stuff that PCs do). &quot;Say yes&quot; rules can help reduce those moments of drag by expediting them - as Prof Phobos articulated with his aforementioned examples.Rules are my day job. Roleplaying - ie creative exploration and development of thematic content in collaboration with others - is what I do for fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 4042628, member: 42582"] KM, this post isn't meant to be antagonistic at all, because (after your response to my kobold vs 20th lvl question, and my question about "cheating") I think I've got a pretty good handle on how you like to play, and (unlike some others on this thread) I don't think you're trying to say that other ways of playing can't be done. What I wanted to do was just pick up on a couple of your comments and say how a different playstyle might handle those issues: In the playstyle I'm trying to articulate, this can be handled not only through the action resolution mechanics, but via GM-player negotiation over the relevant parts of the gameworld (to put it crudely, "say yes" mechanics). Prof Phobos gave some examples way upthread involving town guards and skeletons. And John Snow gave another example by reference to Lois Lane conventions of play. That is, the playstyle I'm articulating is not interested in thwarting player autonomy. In fact, its principal aim is to enhance player autonomy. That's why I'm upbeat about 4e. Everything I've read about it (especially W&M) seems to me to indicate the default assumption is far greater player control via various metagame mechanics and conventions. The gameworld involves more than this, agreed. Sometimes, the game does also - but I have to admit that when the PCs aren't adventuring it can drag a bit (by "adventuring" here I'm meaning the interesting stuff that PCs do). "Say yes" rules can help reduce those moments of drag by expediting them - as Prof Phobos articulated with his aforementioned examples. Rules are my day job. Roleplaying - ie creative exploration and development of thematic content in collaboration with others - is what I do for fun. [/QUOTE]

Verification