Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6731267" data-attributes="member: 27160">That seems only fair <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I don't agree, because I think there is a key element required for &quot;code-breaking&quot; that is a hidden pattern or set of &quot;facts&quot;. There is reasoning required in situations where all of the information on which reasoning is to be based is either clear and open or not amenable to pattern identification. If the dice tables used to generate results were openly displayed (like the weather tables in Formula De, for example), you would have a game requiring reasoning (and with stochastic variables to make the reasoning interesting) but with no discernable &quot;code&quot; capable of being &quot;broken&quot;. The code, if there is one, is already &quot;broken&quot; and laid out before the players.It's still a game, though, and it still requires reasoning.First off, let me say that I don't think RPGs are feasible without any GM improvisation or judgement calls during play whatsoever. For some styles of play - including most that I enjoy - I think the reduction of GM rules improvisation during play is a worthwhile goal, but that doesn't mean it can be eliminated entirely.In the case of &quot;whacky electricity traps&quot; and such like, though, I think a rod is made for the GM's back. Trying to say as a sort of shortcut to &quot;rules&quot; that something is &quot;just like the real world, but, y'know, with allowances for magic...&quot; is a recipe for muddle and pain. Leaving aside for a moment that most players and GMs - me included - don't really understand the behaviour of high-voltage electricity half as well as they think they do, the fact that any PC solution is quite likely to involve the interaction of magic with said high-voltage electricity is simply asking for adjudications to be needed that have nothing to go on beyond bias and flawed extrapolation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 6731267, member: 27160"] That seems only fair :) I don't agree, because I think there is a key element required for "code-breaking" that is a hidden pattern or set of "facts". There is reasoning required in situations where all of the information on which reasoning is to be based is either clear and open or not amenable to pattern identification. If the dice tables used to generate results were openly displayed (like the weather tables in Formula De, for example), you would have a game requiring reasoning (and with stochastic variables to make the reasoning interesting) but with no discernable "code" capable of being "broken". The code, if there is one, is already "broken" and laid out before the players. It's still a game, though, and it still requires reasoning. First off, let me say that I don't think RPGs are feasible without any GM improvisation or judgement calls during play whatsoever. For some styles of play - including most that I enjoy - I think the reduction of GM [i]rules[/i] improvisation during play is a worthwhile goal, but that doesn't mean it can be eliminated entirely. In the case of "whacky electricity traps" and such like, though, I think a rod is made for the GM's back. Trying to say as a sort of shortcut to "rules" that something is "just like the real world, but, y'know, with allowances for magic..." is a recipe for muddle and pain. Leaving aside for a moment that most players and GMs - me included - don't really understand the behaviour of high-voltage electricity half as well as they think they do, the fact that any PC solution is quite likely to involve the interaction of magic with said high-voltage electricity is simply asking for adjudications to be needed that have nothing to go on beyond bias and flawed extrapolation. [/QUOTE]

Verification