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: 5569972" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think I'm going to be repeating myself, here, but it's probably my fault for making a post that was too long to read, earlier... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />OK, but what is meant, here, by "the character's actual actions"?  The character doesn't have any actual actions - the character doesn't have any independent or physical existence!  I know this is an easy shorthand way of saying what is going on, but I think it masks a layer that is critical to understanding what you mean, here.  "What the character actually does" is not a physical, independent thing - it is a model in your own imagination with (more or less congruent) mirrors in the imaginations of the other players.  By saying that what matters is "the character's actions" as pictured in those models rather than as described by the mechanics you introduce a few of complications:1) The models in the minds of the various players present are not necessarily identical.2) By saying that these "actions" matter, rather than the actions as described in mechanical terms, you necessarily postulate an additional set of "rules of the world" that supercede (or at least supplement) the game mechanics.  This is not necessarily a problem - but we really ought to consider the form and source of those alternate or additional rules before accepting them.3) As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] mentions, the question arises "which actions, exactly, are "important"?".  I assume it's safe to say that nobody tries to model their ropleplating world at the level of atoms or molecules (even for those universes where such terms are in the slightest bit relevant), and even modelling the precise physical movements of the player characters in all circumstances would be most likely way beyond anything anyone would really consider.  I did once see a roleplaying system that modelled each layer of armour, clothing, skin, fat, muscle and bone in an impacted body (with resistances and damage attenuation for each one), but that was, I think, right at the edge of the envelope.  If not everything is treated as important/impactful, then the question of "What is?" becomes a defining one.Now, consider the implications of these complications.  You are adding to or substituting for the game mechanics with rules of your own devising - possibly even rules that you prefer to keep intuitive, fluid and unwritten.  But you still need to select what aspects of the descriptions players give of the fiction are "important", and you still need to adjudicate the impact those aspects of their descriptions will have.  In other words, you are doing exactly the same job the game designers have done, you have just followed your view of what, in those descriptions, is important and what effect it has, rather than the game designers' view.  There is nothing wrong with that.  But it might help better define the set of rules you are looking for if you can be clearer about what your views about importance and appropriate impact are, rather than ascribing the judgement to a mythical "fiction" or assuming it is in some way "obvious" or "common sense".My view is that this selection of importance and impact is one of personal aesthetics.  Each player will have a personal view - which is mutable to a greater or lesser degree - of what "should be" important and what an "appropriate impact" should be for each "important" element.  If the players have more-or-less congruent views on this - and/or enough flexibility to compromise over it - all goes well.  If the personal tastes clash, all goes not-so-well.With all this in mind, I propose the following tenets:- It is a virtue to be tolerant and accepting about what others consider "important" and "appropriate impact".- It is a virtue to be open and broad-minded in terms of the range of combinations of "importance" and "impact" (i.e. play-styles) that one is prepared to engage with.- Communication about the "important" and "impactful" aspects in a game is good, since no single model of what is "important" or what "should have impact" is a universal or self-evident "truth" - it is all essentially personal taste, since it is all imaginary, anyway.For some value of "role-playing".  The reason I really prefer not to use the term in discussion is that the one thing I can say for sure about its meaning is that different people mean different things when they say it...If we are to have a really useful discussion I think it would be useful to try to really decipher what we really mean when we use these "shortcut" terms.So, does that really mean that you dislike what you do now, or that you like both?  I certainly like both abstracted and tactical combat - at different times, obviously - and use both in games I play.  This is why I try to be very clear that I find 4E D&D to be an excellent game at what it does - not at being any sort of "ultimate roleplaying game" (which I don't believe exists, even in principle).</blockquote>

Verification