Let's talk about "plot", "story", and "play to find out."

[soviet]

It would, and I'm sure there's games that take that light of an approach. Taking the abstraction to a bit more of a granular level, though, allows us to a) play it out in more detail (the exact amount of which is, of course, variable by system to suit one's taste) and b) avoid the 50-50 death odds that a coin-flip system would represent when the Orc flips to see if he successfully stabs me.

Surely you can chain multiple flips together over a sequence of play.

OK the orc runs at you with a vicious serrated blade. [Player describes countermeasures.] Flip a coin to see if you can keep him at bay.

OK, he manages to sidestep your blow and get right up to your flank. He has this wicked evil grin as he stabs towards your exposed flank. [Player describes countermeasures.] Flip a coin to see if he stabs you.

OK, the blade is on target and pushed with strength. Flip a coin to see if it penetrates your armour.

OK the blade rips into your guts and you scream out in agony. Flip a coin to see if the shock and tissue damage takes you out of the fight.

OK the battle's over and the medic treats you. Flip a coin to see if the wound is infected

 

[hawkeyefan]

Do I try to stab the orc or not? That's my choice as player.

Do I succeed? Well, we can't role-play that out at the table very well and so we have to abstract it.

It would, and I'm sure there's games that take that light of an approach. Taking the abstraction to a bit more of a granular level, though, allows us to a) play it out in more detail (the exact amount of which is, of course, variable by system to suit one's taste) and b) avoid the 50-50 death odds that a coin-flip system would represent when the Orc flips to see if he successfully stabs me.

So… it’s a framework that helps us determine success or failure of uncertain actions and allows us to do so with a degree of satisfaction?

That’s what I get out of that. Would you say my reading is accurate?

 

[Lanefan]

So… it’s a framework that helps us determine success or failure of uncertain actions and allows us to do so with a degree of satisfaction?

That’s what I get out of that. Would you say my reading is accurate?

Pretty much, sure.

The only change I'd make is the bolded bit would read "...uncertain actions that require abstraction and..."; specifically to allow for the possibility that not everything requires abstraction.

 

[pemerton]

I think it’s also possible for tools to be necessary.

Yes - this seems pretty obvious to me!

I have a rough idea of what @Lanefan’s game involves. It’s got plenty of rules that I’d never describe as “getting out of the way”.

Quite.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Pretty much, sure.

The only change I'd make is the bolded bit would read "...uncertain actions that require abstraction and..."; specifically to allow for the possibility that not everything requires abstraction.

And by “require abstraction” you mean “we can’t feasibly physically act this out at the table”, right?

I ask this based on past discussions and I have a feeling that will be your answer, but let me know if that’s not the case.

Where I’m going with this is that friends talking at a table is no more accurate a representation of a high stakes negotiation, where lives and other significant things may be uncertain, than it is of a physical conflict.

In my opinion, both of those things benefit from abstraction as elements of play. Abstraction is equally “necessary”.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Where I’m going with this is that friends talking at a table is no more accurate a representation of a high stakes negotiation, where lives and other significant things may be uncertain, than it is of a physical conflict.

I think it is obviously far more accurate a representation, it just is not a perfect one. And it can certainly be reasonably argued that adding rules will not improve that accuracy.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it is obviously far more accurate a representation, it just is not a perfect one. And it can certainly be reasonably argued that adding rules will not improve that accuracy.

I mean, in both cases people are talking. My point is that’s about where the similarities end.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I mean, in both cases people are talking. My point is that’s about where the similarities end.

Frankly, that's just blatantly not true. People are immersed in the viewpoints of their characters, they will make arguments, they have goals. It is basically the same except it is pretend. That is far more like the real thing than playing some abstract minigame with dice. It is like how fighting for real with padded swords is more like a real fight than D&D combat, even though it is not exactly like a real combat.

 

[Lanefan]

And by “require abstraction” you mean “we can’t feasibly physically act this out at the table”, right?

I ask this based on past discussions and I have a feeling that will be your answer, but let me know if that’s not the case.

Where I’m going with this is that friends talking at a table is no more accurate a representation of a high stakes negotiation, where lives and other significant things may be uncertain, than it is of a physical conflict.

That largely depends on the players and how immersed-engaged-invested they are at the time; and sure, intense engagement isn't going to happen all the time. That said, I think it's a worthy goal to strive for, and step one of that striving is to remove the fall-back crutch of "I roll diplomacy" or similar.

 

[soviet]

Frankly, that's just blatantly not true. People are immersed in the viewpoints of their characters, they will make arguments, they have goals. It is basically the same except it is pretend.

It is not the same. It has zero stakes and zero social or psychological pressure.

It is very easy in a roleplayed situation to resist all attempts at persuasion, to agree to a wild course of action, to escalate your efforts until the other side capitulates, to refuse to budge one iota against determined opposition. It is very different to do these things in real life when you don't know the real consequences of those actions, including how other people will perceive you either in the moment or later.

It feels more like 'you're really doing it' because you're using the same essential tool (conversation) but that perception is an illusion because the inputs and outputs are all wrong.