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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6113459" data-attributes="member: 27160">This was in general a fine post, but I would add just one detail that I find important just here.With a little practice, I find it quite possible to think in (quasi-)game-world terms at this stage. I say "quasi" because there is an important difference that I think is inevitable; my own knowledge and understanding of the game system substitutes for the character's knowledge and understanding of the game world. The realities of fighting even human-sized enemies with edged weapons and shields is something I have no experience of; add to that the fact that the game-world physics that entail dragons and manticores flying, for instance, must be quite different to real world physics and I can only conclude that I have no real points of reference from the real world model that I carry in my head to the game-world model that we imagine the characters carrying in theirs. So the mechanical system acts as a proxy. I make judgements of likely outcomes or the advisability of a course of action by the character based on my knowledge of the game system. I imagine the character to be making their judgements based on a model of their world similar to the one I carry in my head of my world, but that model, like the character, is imaginary, so I can't use it directly.If the mechanical system of resolution is actually a model held primarily in another (real) person's head, I have a problem. Now I have access to no useful model at all of the likely outcomes or validity of any plan I make for my character.As a GM, placing my players in this position is not something I wish to do. The easiest (though not the only) way to avoid it is to tell them up-front what the system of resolution is. If a published work can do that for me, it's useful.</blockquote>

Verification