Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8942417" data-attributes="member: 7026617">Eh.&nbsp; You can see them that way, but just as easily see them (at least the way their used in D&amp;Doids) an abstraction of a particular trope of heroic characters rarely falling to the first strike they get.&nbsp; As I've said, I don't think they're the best way to do that, but surprise, they're an ancient mechanic at this point that predates the vast majority of people playing games that use them.&nbsp; They certainly have some gamist usage, but I don't think that's all that's there.Wheras I will still argue they're an in-between case; they represent things that people in the setting can and do talk about, though they're handled in a metacurrancy-like fashion because D&amp;D has never had the courage of its convictions about handling things in any sort of simulationist fashion.&nbsp; It talks a good game there, but usually drops back to a pretty gamist solution given any chance (in part because that's what the majority of users probably want).The distinction is true metacurrancies never really represent anything anyone in-setting would be able to talk about (I say &quot;rarely&quot; rather than &quot;never&quot; because Torg demonstrates its not impossible for this to be the case).&nbsp; They're a purely authorial tool.And that's the distinction I'm arguing for.&nbsp; I suspect most people unfond of metacurrancies aren't too happy with either, but I bet they're far more willing (if perhaps not happy) to tolerate the latter (and of course, you still have the potential for the Torg situation, but I suspect Torg would bother most such folks for any number of reasons).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Thomas Shey, post: 8942417, member: 7026617"] Eh. You can see them that way, but just as easily see them (at least the way their used in D&Doids) an abstraction of a particular trope of heroic characters rarely falling to the first strike they get. As I've said, I don't think they're the best way to do that, but surprise, they're an ancient mechanic at this point that predates the vast majority of people playing games that use them. They certainly have some gamist usage, but I don't think that's all that's there. Wheras I will still argue they're an in-between case; they represent things that people in the setting can and do talk about, though they're handled in a metacurrancy-like fashion because D&D has never had the courage of its convictions about handling things in any sort of simulationist fashion. It talks a good game there, but usually drops back to a pretty gamist solution given any chance (in part because that's what the majority of users probably want). The distinction is true metacurrancies never really represent anything anyone in-setting would be able to talk about (I say "rarely" rather than "never" because Torg demonstrates its not impossible for this to be the case). They're a purely authorial tool. And that's the distinction I'm arguing for. I suspect most people unfond of metacurrancies aren't too happy with either, but I bet they're far more willing (if perhaps not happy) to tolerate the latter (and of course, you still have the potential for the Torg situation, but I suspect Torg would bother most such folks for any number of reasons). [/QUOTE]

Verification