Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 8938478" data-attributes="member: 6690965">You're doing precisely the opposite. The thing that everyone gets up in arms about is when you attempt to frame the underlying thing we're all doing as part of a unified theory that can fit comfortably on your terms alone. That's the thing that makes it look like you're claiming a monopoly on the truth about what roleplaying is, and makes all the trad gamers who are still in the room after the jargon has come out growl.If you wanted to offer a bridge, then you'd do it backwards. Explain how success at cost is really equivalent to hit point ablation, or really, how you can map everything that happens in Story Now framing to a map and key model with just a bit of effort (both things I do not think are true, nor worth doing). Or, you could not do that, and accept the two play loops are not the same. We will all get along better if you don't attempt to frame them as equivalent, and instead focus on what is achieved and desired by people doing different things, or if you move your analysis back up a level and find commonality at a more fundamental trait of the activity, like [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] has been trying to do.This is a red herring, and you're smart enough to know that. If a player can kill a monster with one attack, the decision space they're playing in changes, and now they're gambling based on their actual odds of doing so (and attacking has increased significantly in value). 4e's minion rules are built entirely around exploiting the effect this has on player decision making.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 8938478, member: 6690965"] You're doing precisely the opposite. The thing that everyone gets up in arms about is when you attempt to frame the underlying thing we're all doing as part of a unified theory that can fit comfortably on your terms alone. That's the thing that makes it look like you're claiming a monopoly on the truth about what roleplaying is, and makes all the trad gamers who are still in the room after the jargon has come out growl. If you wanted to offer a bridge, then you'd do it backwards. Explain how success at cost is really equivalent to hit point ablation, or really, how you can map everything that happens in Story Now framing to a map and key model with just a bit of effort (both things I do not think are true, nor worth doing). Or, you could not do that, and accept the two play loops are not the same. We will all get along better if you don't attempt to frame them as equivalent, and instead focus on what is achieved and desired by people doing different things, or if you move your analysis back up a level and find commonality at a more fundamental trait of the activity, like [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] has been trying to do. This is a red herring, and you're smart enough to know that. If a player can kill a monster with one attack, the decision space they're playing in changes, and now they're gambling based on their actual odds of doing so (and attacking has increased significantly in value). 4e's minion rules are built entirely around exploiting the effect this has on player decision making. [/QUOTE]

Verification