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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5715758" data-attributes="member: 42582">I read your post, but I don't agree that it is merely a semantic issue. I think there is a difference between:(i) rules that tell us what the gameworld looks like/contains within it (as per your essay, this will only be at a certain level of shared understanding - not every detail will be filled in by the rules);(ii) rules that tell us who gets to say what the gameworld looks like/contains within it (perhaps subject to certain constraints).The difference also matters to PC building. Under the first approach, my PC's skill bonus corresponds in a definite way to some quantifiable capability as a fictional person. On the second approach, my PC's skill bonus indicates that, in scenes where that particular skill is relevant, I have a better chance of being able to narrate a certain sort of success by my PC.I should add, I don't think the two approaches are mutually exclusive (and nor does Vincent Baker's comment imply that they are - quite the contrary). The Burning Wheel is one example that emphasises both. Character skill bonuses in BW correspond to a definite, quantifiable capability. But they also correspond to narrative power for the player - because of the "intent and task" rules, when I succeed at a skill check using my PC's skill in some applicable task, it is not just that the task occurs, but I am licensed to narrate the success of my intent. And if I fail, the GM is also encouraged not to focus on failure of the task, but on failure of the intent. This sort of approach to the mechanics, and their relationship to the fiction, does not seem to be contemplated by Monte Cook's statement.</blockquote>

Verification