Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6257613" data-attributes="member: 27160">If that is what you got from my post then my bad - I must have explained insufficiently well (or it rained at the wrong time <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ).What I'm drawing a distinction between is the outcome - however detailed or otherwise it might be - and the process that got there. In a TTRPG the system needs to define the former - defining the latter is a matter of taste.By way of example: a detailed outcome might be "the target of the assault has a Minor Blunt Contusion to the left calf and a Major Cut wound to the left shoulder causing a Minor level of bloodloss; furthermore, the target's shoulder armour has sustained a Major level of damage and they are dazed for one Impulse of time". This has detail, but it doesn't relate the detailed outcome with the actions of the attacker in detail. The actions of the attacker may simply have been described as "he made an attack", and the resolution system to get to the outcome may not have even used concepts such as "hit", "miss", "strike" or such like. The way that the wounds eventuated may be entirely open for interpretation.Let's break this down. What you seem to require here is that one part of the resolution system - the "success roll" - forms the divider between "the character's action had some effect" and "the character's action had no effect at all".If we are looking at the resolution system simply as a process to get an outcome, that makes no real sense at all; it seems arbitrary and somewhat puzzling.If, on the other hand, we assume that this one particular part of the resolution process - the success roll - maps directly onto some key action (or inaction) that forms part of the in-game process by which the character does or does not achieve results, then it makes perfect sense. In other words, this requirement demands (or at least appears to demand) that there is a direct correspondance between elements of the game mechanical resolution process and the in-game actions that the game mechanical process is being engaged to resolve. This is "process sim". The elements of the game mechanical resolution process define specific elements of the in-game process that results in the outcome resulting from the resolution.There is nothing wrong with process-sim - some folk like it, others don't - but it unequivocally is not neccessary for TTRPG rules.That strikes me as somewhat idiosyncratic, but fair enough. Presumably, then, by this and your explanation of "saving throws" further down, the targets of weapon attacks and seduction/persuasion effects should get saving throws, too? After all, happenstance evasions of such things are far from unheard of. Although, I guess, this could simply be the extreme end of genre simulation, where the genre is TV and movies (where happenstance failures seem to be far rarer than in real life - I guess they go along with visiting the bathroom and getting cramps...)I guess I'm thinking "so what?", here. That's how life is.I'm confused here as to whether we're talking about the player or the character. Some conflation in play might be acceptable (and even desirable, in some play styles), but in discussions about the game (and especially about game rules) it's simply confusing. Is it the character or the player that is supposed to be drawing rational inferences, here - and why?</blockquote>

Verification