Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 5718802" data-attributes="member: 386">Thanks for the reply!My point of view: The game has rules which give value to different choices.  Those values should be balanced so that there's often a decision to be made; that is, there are often multiple choices that all appear to be sound*.   The kinds of choices that we want to make should be supported by the rules by balancing the values given.  If not, the game isn't going to be satisfying.* - That's what I mean when I say "balanced", by the way.  There can be an optimal choice to be made, but if that choice is hidden because it relies on perfect information, then it's still a valid option.The way I read this is that you want mechanics that give the right values to choices made; that is, given that your character is a bad-ass fighter, it's a sound decision to charge the hill giant who can easily take out 25 commoners.  You wouldn't want it to be a sound decision for your "just got my first sword" character to do the same, and if the mechanics made that a valid choice (for example, if the monster's stats always scale to party level, so "hill giant" is just a skin slapped on the same stats anything else will have), it wouldn't work for you.Question: assuming that is correct, is that because it means that you don't have to consider the mechanics when you make your decisions?  You can stay in the role of your character and make decisions from his point of view.  You can rely on the mechanics to produce acceptable outcomes - because they are "a reliable, consistent model" for determining what happens to the characters in the game world.I think there's another way to approach RPGs.  For example, in Prime-Time Adventures, when there's a conflict you draw a number of cards.  The number of cards you draw depends on a metagame resource (fan mail, or the "budget" if you're the DM) and some character resources (personal set, relationships).  If you have more red cards than the DM, you win the conflict.  Whoever draws the highest card gets to narrate what happens.It's possible to build a narrative that you'd have no problem with, if you read a transcript of the RPG session after the fact.  But I'd guess that you wouldn't like those mechanics that much, because when you narrate (for example) you're not doing so from a point of view of your character.  That's what I mean by the mechanics requiring you to step out of your role.*Anyway.  I think that the way we think about RPGs is different, and hopefully there's something to be gained from looking at things in a different way.  I hope I didn't misrepresent your position in an attempt to understand it; if so, let me know where I went wrong.</blockquote>

Verification