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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9562812" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't think having a core resolution mechanic is the same as having super simple combat mechanics. Why do you say that? The rage was initiated by the player, yes. He was angry and chose to have his character rage. It also gave him a boost to easily catch up to the boy. What's interesting about that? This is what I'm asking you. In this example and this example only, can you see the purpose of going to the dice? Can you see how simply allowing the player to choose robs the situation of any weight? Stop taking this example and trying to extrapolate it to every single instance of play, and every single decision the player may make. No one is advocating for a game to do that. Just look at this one example and answer the question... do you see why using the mechanics rather than player fiat in this example created an interesting element of play? The specifics were not set, but some sort of violent or at least frightening encounter between the character and his son seemed to make sense. It's not fraught. It's a perfectly cromulent example. Everyone playing in the game was perfectly comfortable with everything that happened, or would have potentially happened in play. If you can't engage with that example, then just stop replying. Don't try and paint the example as "fraught" or problematic in any way. What hard choices are you talking about? The situation I described was an easy choice, if left to a choice... but people don't always do what's obviously correct, do they? What you're advocating for is to manifest your character conception. Which is perfectly fine as far as preferences or interests go. But I think presenting this as some kind of deeper level of immersion or what have you is just flawed. You've already made all the choices. Then what was your point about combat requiring more rules because it involves more choices? This comment seems to contradict that. No, you can't. Again, apply this logic to combat. If players are allowed to decide the outcome of each fight they get into, each attack they make, then where does the risk come from? Is it a risk that they may choose to lose? Can we really describe that as a risk? So... it's more nuanced and as a result needs fewer rules? But when more decisions are involved, more rules are needed? I can't keep what you're saying straight. And generally, I think social conflicts absolutely are about winning and losing. You're trying to get something... do you get it? These are the kinds of interactions I'm talking about.</blockquote>

Verification