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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Surgoshan" data-source="post: 4133479" data-attributes="member: 61205">I see a few arguments that all work pretty darn well.1)  The Eagle: sometimes things work out really darn well.  It's what you intended, but even you were surprised by how well it worked.The counter: Unless the golfer decided at the tee that he'd get an eagle, it doesn't work.The response:  The golfer didn't decide jack.  The player decided.  That is to say, you probably shouldn't run your game like OotS.  Things happen in the game that build up a narrative.  You, the player, are aware of the mechanics that went into the construction of the narrative.  The PC just went in, hacked and slashed, and did a few things very, very well.b)  Wuxia:  The PC has tapped a supernatural talent that manifests itself as martial ability rather than magic, fey, etc.Argument:  Then why can't he fly?Response:  Because <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qinggong" target="_blank">wearing weights on your ankles</a> will only take you so far.  Again, from the out of game mechanical perspective we know about the separation of powers (the D&D checks and balances) so that each PC has a role and can participate in the game.  In the game, the perspective is that the player has tapped his supernatural talent so that he can use a sword as a mystical ability.  Those who have tapped a supernatural talent for other purposes will be the ones to fly, or throw energy, or make friends really, really easily.Both of these have, in the more developed argument, the element that the out-of-game mechanics are there to help construct the in-game narrative/simulation.  The first is much more narrativist (as in after the battle is over you could go back and reconstruct what actually happened, but not before because all the rolls and damage and whatnot still have to be worked out).  The second is much more simulationist (at least by my interpretation of the term) because it attempts to provide a mechanic that explains the limitations without breaking verisimilitude.  I like both.</blockquote>

Verification