NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 9257240" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This is why I framed my post above the way I did, CL.  Look at the empirical claims you're making above that you detach from "my (Crimson Longinus') particular cognitive orientation to sense of coherency or immersive state."The first paragraph has at least one if not two.  See the 4 bolded bits:1)  I understand that it makes sense to you to use PC elves and NPC elves be represented by similar rules.  2)  I understand its your orientation to rules to have a CL-litmus test of simulation otherwise the rules to fiction relationship will generate a sense of baked-in incoherency.  3)  I understand that if you don't have a particular brand of causal-coupling of fiction element y to rules element x then you will feel decisions around rules become increasingly arbitrary (for whatever value of increasingly).4)  I understand that you like the way your sim-based, GM extrapolations of setting : rules relationship make you feel comfortable about decisions around helpful NPCs (or unhelpful...or all dispositions in between).But that was the thrust of my post above.  Plenty of games and plenty of people don't hold any of your 1 through 4 as necessary for coherency or immersion or usability (or whatever).  And design based around process rather than outcome does, in fact, have trade-offs.  Just as outcome-based design has trade-offs such as "players who share CL's cognitive orientation to fiction : rules coupling and related causal logic/extrapolation likely won't dig this game!"</blockquote>

Verification