Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alexander Kalinowski" data-source="post: 7555861" data-attributes="member: 6931283">So, first of all I need retract a few things because I did misread the AW play example indeed. The grenade hard move was in response to a prior failure and the gender of that ganger was not determined on the fly it was just never announced previously (not that the latter makes much of a difference). What some of you do not seem get however is that trad games DO define the physics of a game world. It's not a physics simulation in a scientific sense. But they DO define how much you can do in, say 6 seconds. How many arrows you can shoot, how far you can run, how far you can throw, how much damage you take when you fall. These things vary slightly from ruleset to ruleset, adding to each game's unique feel. And they do constrain the narration. Intentionally so. So that's what I am referring to by 'the mechanics define the world's physics.' Also: Narration isn't decoupled from mechanics. Mechanics drive narration. That holds equally true for D&D and PbtA. On the other hand, narration also drives mechanics. You state what your PC wants to do and then we'll determine what happens via the mechanics.Why is this relevant? Because this thread is quite obviously about imposing hard limits on what can be done in a 5 second turn in One-vs-Many situation - with the aim of making the combats more cinematic. (As such, it is more aimed at trad games.) If the rules don't impose such a constraint, then either the GM must or the players must do it on their own (possibly due to a gentleman's agreement). Otherweise, scenes might play out in the game world differently than in TV shows or movies on a regular basis.Now with that out of the way:Plausibly keep alive. Kinda like many GMs, don't you think?Which is fine with me if it's not done in excess. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=644yICFua_w" target="_blank">Yoren's death scene</a> for example works for me quite well. I like people standing in the flank and hesitating, looking for that one safe moment to attack with maximum chance. About any mechanics CAN be interpreted in a cinematic way. Even simple "attack versus AC, scratch off hitpoints" or "Attack, Parry, Damage". Some mechanics are probably more evocative than others. I am thinking of Hârnmaster's Hit Locations and hit effects. Or Rolemaster's Critical Tables. They provide more detail and do evoke certain images on their own. Whereas in the case of "You take 10 Hitpoints" the GM has more freedom to interpret that but it also does not conjure up certain images on its own because it is too vague. Why is this relevant? Because you CAN interpret a missed attack roll in a One-vs-Many situation as hesitating to attack or being blocked by any ally. But it does not very much evoke that imagery on its own. And I would dare to assert that most GMs won't narrate it that way, based on my own anecdotal evidence. That's why I am arguing for evocative mechanics in trad games, even though you won't be able to evoke every possible event. More narrative games like PbtA work differently. It's not very important to their narrative-driven structure to capture this in a mechanic/Move. You can safely off-load it to narration without any loss to the underlying core philosophy.I like this, it's simpler than what I have come up with (an extra Closing Roll that is based on fighting ability). It loses some precision though because you don't have rounds where some attack and rounds where all attack. Hmmm, maybe I'll cook up something inbetween for the next iteration of my own rules.I tend to agree, although I just realize a side-benefit of making multi-attacks harder: singular enemies don't have to be as tough anymore to pose a threat to PCs. And PCs can deal with Mooks more easily, especially when at lower levels. The drawback? More turns in which you can't land an attack (it's not for everyone by any means) and longer combats unless you adapt the stats of NPCs.That's exactly the point. The underlying question is: how do mechanics have to be designed to be evocative? And I am talking here trad games who set up a world (and its physics/rules) in greater detail and then have story emerge from interactions within this set-up and preplanned events. (As opposed to more narrative games, which tend to have less fixed detail information about the setting - including physics - for the sake of having more blank canvas to be creative in piecing together a story. That's why Dungeon World doesn't keep track of exact amount of arrows - it's not important for the drama. All you need to know is if you're running low or are out of ammo.)</blockquote>

Verification