Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6261646" data-attributes="member: 42582">That second thing hardly seems relevant to the discussion.Here is a possible RPG resolution mechanic: the player declares an action and intention for his/her PC, and the GM then tosses a coin which the GM calls. If the player wins the toss, the PC's action takes place achieving the previously stated intention. If the player loses the toss, the GM gets to narrate the way in which the declared action fails to achieve the declared intention.As I've mentioned upthread, there are RPGs whose mechanics are roughly comparable to this (typically more complex versions of this). They are fine RPGs. But the coin toss (or die roll or whatever it is) does not simulate or model any ingame causal process. It's just an arbiter of outcomes.This absence of process simulation is reinforced by the fact that, in this sort of game, you can use exactly the same resolution technique to resolve a single second of combat (in which case you're going to have to deploy it multiple times if you want to resolve a whole combat); or a duel; or one purchase; or one exchange of haggling within the context of a purchase (again, this will then require multiple deployments of the technique to resolve the whole shopping expedition); or a year's farming. The reason you can scale the ingame time frame, and the ingame causal scope of the declared action and intention, up or down without having to change the resolution method, is precisely because it is not modelling any ingame causal process.This is a 180-degree reversal from how I play RPGs, and I think [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] is much closer to me than you. Obviously your playstyle is your prerogative, but you have a tendency to be very cavalier in imputing it to others and/or asserting that it is typical or default.This is an extremely contentious account of how "all fiction is".</blockquote>

Verification