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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6150815" data-attributes="member: 6696971">@<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?27160-Balesir" target="_blank">Balesir</a> Something like 1e combat rounds; abstract time interval of conflict resolution into one roll. My guess is that while 1e combat rounds gets a pass due to legacy (which is odd considering how central the combat round is to play), your abstract conflict resolution system (although it sounds compelling and functional) would not get the same pass from the same crowd.Magic as conduit for outrageous expansion of locus of control for spellcasters (while forbidding mechanics that work to expand mundane players', and their characters', locus of control) is the issue here. "Because magic" allows the players of spellcasters to deploy resources and dictate the fiction from Director Stance or Author Stance by proxy of Author Stance due to this expansion of locus control. We're into the same positions as ever (and in a surreal, stepford fashion). One side of the issue demands 1 or more of the below 3:- As much serial accounting for the mundane passage of time (and its knock-on effects) as possible rather than hard (or gross if you prefer it) abstraction of time and its effects.- As much game mechanics as physics/process simulator as possible and all of the granular interactions that come with that. - 1st person, Actor Stance as the only allowable player perspective at the table; eg no dictating any of the fiction external to the precise, well-accounted-for locus of control of your character (no Director or Author stance).Fighter says: "I can chop down that tree or climb it."Magic Guy says: "What tree?" or "I am that tree" or "I just leapt that tree in a single bound and am hovering above it." All "because magic."Those two guys cannot dream of competing, or being relevant with respect to one another, in the arena of non-combat, conflict resolution if the 3 above must be observed with perfect fealty. You'd have a stronger argument if you asserted that mail courtiers in the 1700s could be a relevant, money-making enterprise while competing with modern day UPS or Fedex. The cannot...not in a High Magic, High Fantasy system such as D&D where resource scheduling, and inherent balance, is all over the map (pre 4e).  You can fully contrive situations to impose sharing the spotlight but the two parties won't be sharing in a way the characters will and means. They'll be sharing due to GM-forced, contrived situations that either bind spellcasters' unbeleivably disproportionate locus of control or make the task not worth the spellcaster player's time/effort to deploy a spell because there is absolutely no way for those two parties to dictate outcomes with the same breadth and potency...that is within the strictures of the above.</blockquote>

Verification