Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7560298" data-attributes="member: 48965"><s><s></s></s><s><s></s></s><s><s>Eh, IMO this is a very weak argument and instead of being applicable to real play (as you like to so often refer to) seems only applicable to some platonic idea where a DM doesn't have bias or preference ro even differences in perception... of course any game should work perfectly if that's the case.&nbsp; A sandbox should be able to constrain the real-world social negotiation between player and referee through the use of random rolls if the tables are created without bias, or preferences.&nbsp; Even GM fiat when applied with foreshadowing, player expectations in mind and neutral biases should be able to constrain the real-world social negotiation between player and referee.&nbsp; In other words, at least IMO, ignoring the things that cause there to have to be social negotiation between player and referee serves no purpose in discussion.</s></s><s><s></s></s><s><s>To further expound as long as there is room for a DM to determine what the chances of a player achieving success or failure are... then there is, at leats as it has been defined in this thread, MMI... we are just talking about degrees.&nbsp; No matter what examples are given in the Traveller rulebook no 2 GM's are going to make the rule the same throws for the same actions the each and every time.&nbsp; Same with 4e.&nbsp; These systems don't have checks in place for this like say PbtA games do where, as was pointed out earlier, success and failure are in fact not set by the GM but consistently the same number.&nbsp; You seem to be claiming your MMI is better than others MMI because you have guidelines or examples and for your particular goals I partly agree... where I don't though is that in discussion you ignore the fact that it is in fact a question of at what degree it is no longer MMI for you (a question both I and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] have continually tried to get you to answer with no success).</s></s></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 7560298, member: 48965"] [s][s] Eh, IMO this is a very weak argument and instead of being applicable to real play (as you like to so often refer to) seems only applicable to some platonic idea where a DM doesn't have bias or preference ro even differences in perception... of course any game should work perfectly if that's the case. A sandbox should be able to constrain the real-world social negotiation between player and referee through the use of random rolls if the tables are created without bias, or preferences. Even GM fiat when applied with foreshadowing, player expectations in mind and neutral biases should be able to constrain the real-world social negotiation between player and referee. In other words, at least IMO, ignoring the things that cause there to have to be social negotiation between player and referee serves no purpose in discussion. To further expound as long as there is room for a DM to determine what the chances of a player achieving success or failure are... then there is, at leats as it has been defined in this thread, MMI... we are just talking about degrees. No matter what examples are given in the Traveller rulebook no 2 GM's are going to make the rule the same throws for the same actions the each and every time. Same with 4e. These systems don't have checks in place for this like say PbtA games do where, as was pointed out earlier, success and failure are in fact not set by the GM but consistently the same number. You seem to be claiming your MMI is better than others MMI because you have guidelines or examples and for your particular goals I partly agree... where I don't though is that in discussion you ignore the fact that it is in fact a question of at what degree it is no longer MMI for you (a question both I and [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] have continually tried to get you to answer with no success).[/s][/s] [/QUOTE]

Verification