Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Doug McCrae" data-source="post: 6152727" data-attributes="member: 21169">There's the issue of Fortune-in-the-Middle. Saving throws as described in 1e AD&D are explicitly FitM, and some approaches to 4e play are FitM too. As I understand it (and I might have this wrong as I'm not that up on narrativist play) the game mechanic that's in the middle of FitM can be used to support narrativist play, but it doesn't have to be. The game mechanic decides part of what happens in the game world. For many, probably most, players, what the mechanic describes - such as whether a saving throw succeeds or whether the Come And Get It maneuver works - is all that matters. My understanding is that for a narrativist, interpreting what that result means in the game world is an important part of play too - how does the hero escape, why do the antagonists rush forward to their doom?The FitM approach doesn't necessarily give players metagame power, it depends on who has the power to interpret the mechanic. Maybe only the GM can interpret the results. I get the impression that Gary Gygax's concern is with justifying D&D's mechanics to critics, and giving D&D DMs some arguments to deploy against charges of lack of realism. FitM enables rpg participants to choose the most plausible interpretation of an abstract game mechanic, so it can be used for this purpose.</blockquote>