Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6876225" data-attributes="member: 16814">That's a new and interesting claim.  I'd like to hear how you think I'm contradicting myself.  Like, seriously, not being snarky.I know I've said that I don't understand how you and pemerton don't see that you're contradicting your stance on 'this is exactly by the rules' when it changes a rule to work, but I'm not sure how I've contradicted myself.  I'm curious if this is a blind spot I have.I agree with this.  The concept here is that the narration is supporting the mechanical outcome -- the mechanics indicate a crit, so you narrate a triple flip and a head stab to support that mechanical outcome.  The mechanics and the fiction are working in the same direction -- both result in success.  I further support that, just because you narrated that mechanical success, you can't then just use the same narration to ensure the same mechanical success.  All good, totally agree, like it!But LOL is narrating success on a mechanical failure.  That causes long term issues where either the narration must give to the mechanics or the mechanics must give to the narration because they are in opposition.  Any situation that pits a mechanical outcome against the narration will require that one or the other bends.  In the LOL case, with ZoT, you and pemerton bend the mechanics of ZoT, and justify it as not having an overall difference mechanically.  But to do that, you must bend the mechanics of ZoT.  You're judging on the outcome, not the process.  So long as the outcome is the same to you (and I argue it's not necessarily the same), the change doesn't matter and you haven't changed a rule.  But that rule is a process, not an outcome, and you have changed that process to allow the narration, so you have, in fact, changed the rule.  And that's fine, my point isn't that you can't, or even shouldn't do that.  pemerton had a nice way of conceptualizing rules as outcomes instead of processes, and that works.  My issue is just the  assertion that your way doesn't actually change anything when it really does.  I think there's a difference between a player saying whatever they want and narration of their character in a space partially controlled by the rules.  ZoT, for instance, does constrain player character declarations -- you can't lie.  Narrating a lie under a ZoT breaks the rule.  Charm and dominate work in similar ways -- they restrict allowable narration.  Charm means you must view the charmer as a friend -- you can't narrate a plan to stab him in the back unless that's exactly what you do for all of your besties.  Dominate pretty much removes your ability to declare completely.  So there are lots of mechanics that restrict player action declarations.  It seems strange to say that you run a game that has no such allowable restrictions, yet you're playing entirely within the rules.  The rules themselves place restrictions, on occasion.But, yes, I do find LOL's narration to be immature and antisocial, so I would work that out at the table.  LOL's concept wouldn't be allowed except as a form of delusion, which, honestly, I still find disruptive.</blockquote>

Verification