Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5977605" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think another factor, and perhaps the more important factor, is that some fans seem very hostile to exploring new options, or developing existing ones, in the non-combat domain.That's a pretty good summary of the current state of play, I think.What's interesting is that it does suggest some ways forward.First, we need advice on adjudication (of skills, of spells, etc - page 42, the &quot;rule of the Ming vase&quot;, and everything else that's relevant). This will support the OSR and 4e crowd. We need some canvassing of metagame-driven adjudiation. Some OSRers might buy this (&quot;the rule of the Ming vase has a strong metagame component), and the 4e crowd probably will. Then we need a meta-structure to support this. The OSRers part company at that point, but the 4e-ers like and use it. Second, we need rules which include simulationinst pacing. These are for the Simulationists, anti-Narrativists and Combat-as-War types. (The OSRers can pick these up if the want them. The 4e-ers can ignore them.) The main issue here is if certain game elements - most likely spells - have to be &quot;double coded&quot; to work for both the rulings approach and the rules approach.Finally, there's the &quot;I win&quot; spells. These need either to be clearly labelled so those who don't want them can ignore them, or else the rulings advice which deals with metagame-driven adjudication has to explain how that sort of adjudication can be used to constrain &quot;I win&quot; spells - which in turn have to be written in such a way that, when adjudicated in that non-simulationist fashion, they are no longer &quot;I win&quot;.That's not trivial, but it's not completely hopeless either!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5977605, member: 42582"] I think another factor, and perhaps the more important factor, is that some fans seem very hostile to exploring new options, or developing existing ones, in the non-combat domain. That's a pretty good summary of the current state of play, I think. What's interesting is that it does suggest some ways forward. First, we need advice on adjudication (of skills, of spells, etc - page 42, the "rule of the Ming vase", and everything else that's relevant). This will support the OSR and 4e crowd. We need some canvassing of metagame-driven adjudiation. Some OSRers might buy this ("the rule of the Ming vase has a strong metagame component), and the 4e crowd probably will. Then we need a meta-structure to support this. The OSRers part company at that point, but the 4e-ers like and use it. Second, we need rules which include simulationinst pacing. These are for the Simulationists, anti-Narrativists and Combat-as-War types. (The OSRers can pick these up if the want them. The 4e-ers can ignore them.) The main issue here is if certain game elements - most likely spells - have to be "double coded" to work for both the rulings approach and the rules approach. Finally, there's the "I win" spells. These need either to be clearly labelled so those who don't want them can ignore them, or else the rulings advice which deals with metagame-driven adjudication has to explain how that sort of adjudication can be used to constrain "I win" spells - which in turn have to be written in such a way that, when adjudicated in that non-simulationist fashion, they are no longer "I win". That's not trivial, but it's not completely hopeless either! [/QUOTE]

Verification