NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9639774" data-attributes="member: 82106">But you cannot escape the actual description of, and discussion about how things actually play, which UNDERGIRDS the way it feels and plays out in an agenda sense. You cannot get to your philosophy without first visiting techniques. That is, any attempt to better play will have to regard the techniques, so you better discuss them! Philosophy (agenda) is anyway largely an aesthetic matter. I will agree that you want to understand the linkage, but it seems wrong to dismiss techniques in ANY endeavor.I don't believe this distinction exists. No TB2e GM would fail to take into account the dangers, motivations of adversaries, etc. when narrating the outcome of a camp phase which fails. The mere fact that we know 'something happened' first and then decided what doesn't change that. In fact the standard AD&D procedure for wandering monsters has a check be made and THEN a roll on the table to see what you got, assuming the result was positive. In either case the GM will now, taking Aethereal Premonition into account, narrate some situation relating to whatever likely danger (maybe using a table, nothing prevents this, though I don't think TB2e really envisages such) manifested.I agree that AP causes a straight reduction in the probability of a failure to camp, whereas Alarm mitigates the severity if it happens (maybe, though probably 95% of the time it will). If I wanted to be really nit picky, or just found it interesting, I could always use a different colored die for the AP bonus and then narrate any check that passed ONLY by dint of that die as "and your alarm went off, but whatever it was hightailed out of there" or some other non-camp-failure-but-there-was-an-encounter kind of narrative. I think, in this specific kind of case, there's less difference than you want to believe.I don't really agree. You have a perspective, but it is VERY VERY focused on a view of RPGs that seems to be centered on emulating causality as a central aspect. So you see a radical difference between 'fortune before' and 'fortune after' (or in the middle, there's a couple of different formulations of this). Yet there are Narrativist systems using ALL of these approaches actively in use and being developed today. Now, maybe we'd have to go deeper here, as these various systems probably do espouse somewhat different values, and those will relate to the systems. Again, I agree with assertions that philosophy/agenda and process of play are tied together, process facilitates and supports agenda and goes together with it. But I think they're related in complex ways. A lot of factors go into any specific game playing a certain way.I don't think anyone has trivialized it. Why would [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] even start the thread if it was trivial?Yes, but you still have to discuss these techniques! I don't really understand what you are objecting to here. We say "lets discuss these techniques and how they relate to other parts of play" and someone comes and says "well, all that is important is agenda, stop yanking at that curtain!"NO! There's no 'nitpicking of language', there is careful systematic discussion of actual technique. Sure, you don't feel that technique X is suitable for agenda/style of play Y, that's perfectly fine. But why then can we not put a name to X and talk about the various aspects of X? Why can't we break it down into its elements and label them? I don't get it.</blockquote>

Verification