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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5760124" data-attributes="member: 42582">That is one way to apply "realism" to an RPG. Another way is to ask "Is the fiction verisimilitudinous and/or genre appropriate?" This can be achived other than via mechanicall modelling of ingame causal processes. It can be achieved by the participants at the table making sure they don't break genre/verisimilitude in their narration.What are the gameworld physics of a HeroQuest Revised game? The action resolution mechanics don't tell you. It is up to the participants (especially the GM) to supply them, keeping in mind constraints of genre and credibility. 4e is, in my view, similar - this is the logic of "say yes" and page 42. Unlike HeroQuest, however, 4e has keywords as important anchors between mechanics and fiction.I'm sure that WotC will get more share if they change their game from it's current design approach to a more 3E-ish approach. For at a year or so it has been increasingly apparent that WotC was wrong in following Ron Edwards idea that there was a market for less-simulationist games that would rely more heavily on the participants to fill in the details of the fiction in the pursuit of other goals of play (thematic, or Balesir-style "light gamist).But (in my view) this has nothing to do with realism. A fortune-in-the-middle game can be as realistic as you like, if the participants adhere to realism in interjecting their narration. And this is the point that (as I posted back on the first page of this thread) I believe that Monte Cook's column appears not to acknowledge."Dying" is not an ingame state. It is a metagame state.But not in a duel of wits, even if the words spoken at the table are only "I sneer at her", "I rebut", etc?I would want to add to this: depending on what sort of game is being run, events in the fiction can be quite significant to the development of an ongoing situation, or the nature/theme/content of future situations.A bard who uses Vicious Mockery to attack skeletons by ridiculing the creator of those skeletons, for example, might later be visited by the hostile ghost of that creator.I didn't suggest you hurt the magic or the creator or the god. I suggested that by mocking those things you might hurt the skeleton or the ooze.The rules you quoted say nothing about whether or not Twist of Space can be used to rescue the victim of a magic trapping mirror. But they do indicate that the spell has the teleport keyword.Resolving a non-standard use of a power and/or skill is a page 42 matter. As [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] put it, this is 4e's default action resolution system.I don't understand why it is a problem that different tables handle it diferent ways. And I don't understand why a GM (or a group) is likely to be inconsistent in adjudication; or, if this is a problem, how more rules detail will help.The Moldvay Basic rulebook mentions only one example fighter - Hercules - and only one example magic-user - Merlin.This is nothing to do with fallacies of generalisation. It is about illustrations. If the writer chooses to illustrate his/her classes by giving Hercules and Merlin as examples, I assume that s/he is inviting me to focus on more than just Hercules club or Merlin's staff, or the fact that both a pre-modern figures, or even just that Hercules uses brawn and Merlin magic.Why does the writer use Hercules, and not (for example) Eric the Red as an example? For me, at least, the example of Hercules invokes a figure not just who uses brawn, but who uses brawn to achieve fantastic feats.</blockquote>

Verification