Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8938711" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Yeah, it's not typically framed that way, I know. But if we just look at it in that way for the purpose of comparison, it can help see the similarities instead of just the differences. Well, the consequences would be anything that potentially happens in subsequent turns... the enemy deals damage, or gets away, or harms a captive, and so on.... as [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] mentioned.Again, we don't think of it that way because trad games tend to break these things all up into different rolls for different characters. But story now games tend to resolve a lot more with one roll. A partial success or success with consequence in many PbtA games means that you hit the enemy, but they also hit you. It's less "how did I do" and more "how did this go". It's a matter of perspective. Consider this... when an enemy hits a character in D&D, we don't generally consider it a failure, right? It's more that the enemy succeeded in hitting us, not that we failed to defend ourselves. But what if D&D worked differently; what if rather than enemy attack rolls, players instead made defensive rolls? How would that alter our perceptions? We'd almost certainly start looking at a low defensive roll that results in an enemy hitting us as a "failure" and not categorize it as the enemy's success. That's not what I'm doing. I have no problem with there being more than one way for games to function. I play and enjoy both kinds of games. And yes, they do things differently, but often the goal is the same.I'm also not really relying on a lot of jargon here. You're wrong about my goal. I'm not trying to say that they are the same. I'm trying to explain why the idea of partial success should not be that difficult for traditional players to grasp by comparing it to the combat in D&D. I say this because it's one of the things that helped me get my head around different ways to play than the one I'd always known. It's not a red herring. It's an example of how the mechanics of a game influence the way we view the game, or approach the game. Which I'd think is pretty straightforward. How does a player know which enemies can be killed in one hit? Obviously in a game like 4e that has minion rules, this may be more obvious. But in other games, it may be far less clear. The player will be more certain of removing the enemy with one hit in the game with minion rules. Obviously, the different methods will result in different play experiences. What I'm saying is that when we're talking about multiple games, approaching the discussion with only one such experience in mind is an obstacle.</blockquote>

Verification