Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6150411" data-attributes="member: 42582">Can we flip this around? What I mean is, instead of thinking about what is or isn't the norm, can we think about what sort of scope for action resolution, scene (re-)framing, etc is appropriate for different styles of play?Whether or not we want metagame abilities to be part of the game, I think this sort of analysis requires a fairly ruthless willingness to discuss the game and its components in metagame terms. For instance, instead of discussing teleport, and scry-and-fry, in terms of ingame fictional setups, we need to talk about the range of player resources and GM counters involved in this sort of play, and whether or not martial PCs have access to them. For instance, if martial PCs have special abilities in relation to providing safe havens (in in-fiction terms this might involve strongholds) then they can play some sort of meaningful role in the scry-and-fry game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6150411, member: 42582"] Can we flip this around? What I mean is, instead of thinking about what is or isn't the norm, can we think about what sort of scope for action resolution, scene (re-)framing, etc is appropriate for different styles of play? Whether or not we want metagame abilities to be part of the game, I think this sort of analysis requires a fairly ruthless willingness to discuss the game and its components in metagame terms. For instance, instead of discussing teleport, and scry-and-fry, in terms of ingame fictional setups, we need to talk about the range of player resources and GM counters involved in this sort of play, and whether or not martial PCs have access to them. For instance, if martial PCs have special abilities in relation to providing safe havens (in in-fiction terms this might involve strongholds) then they can play some sort of meaningful role in the scry-and-fry game. [/QUOTE]

Verification