Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nedjer" data-source="post: 5693028" data-attributes="member: 83796">Different perspectives <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> The blog post appears to be saying 'we have mechanics for perception, but they're not all they could be. If we standardize and think through those mechanics we can have a better set of mechanics for that side of the game - and these don't need to slow play if they're streamlined'.From a technical perspective it's great design, as play is being made more authentic without paying a heavy overhead in terms of keeping track of what's going on.However, beyond that I'm left asking what effects extending simulation through mechanics is likely to have on gameplay. This seems, to me, to be all about where you place the mechanics cart in relation to the players' horse.For me the lifeblood of play is the negotiation, interplay and layering of narratives, which clearly places the GM and players' horse in front of the mechanics cart.This approach could be interpreted as the GM dictating whether or not a PC lives. Or it could be seen as placing negotiated player choice and engagement ahead of rough and ready simulation?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nedjer, post: 5693028, member: 83796"] Different perspectives :) The blog post appears to be saying 'we have mechanics for perception, but they're not all they could be. If we standardize and think through those mechanics we can have a better set of mechanics for that side of the game - and these don't need to slow play if they're streamlined'. From a technical perspective it's great design, as play is being made more authentic without paying a heavy overhead in terms of keeping track of what's going on. However, beyond that I'm left asking what effects extending simulation through mechanics is likely to have on gameplay. This seems, to me, to be all about where you place the mechanics cart in relation to the players' horse. For me the lifeblood of play is the negotiation, interplay and layering of narratives, which clearly places the GM and players' horse in front of the mechanics cart. This approach could be interpreted as the GM dictating whether or not a PC lives. Or it could be seen as placing negotiated player choice and engagement ahead of rough and ready simulation? [/QUOTE]

Verification