Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8966942" data-attributes="member: 70468">The additional context is appreciated. I’ve been reading through the <a href="https://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/" target="_blank">old FAQs</a>. I’m not fond of the challenge-based model that’s suggested because it feels like it’s set up protect play from “bad” gamism.The above seems to cover the rest of the conversation, but I still wanted to touch on this one separately still.It’s going to depend on the specifics of the scenario and how the fix is approached. If things aren’t working as intended, correcting the game state is respecting the integrity of the game. It’s like when someone makes a mistake on their turn in a board game, and they’re allowed to correct it. Maybe they shouldn’t have made the mistake in the first place, but are you getting the best competition if you don’t allow them to correct it? (Obviously, this can be abused, so there may need to be some discretion exercised.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8966942, member: 70468"] The additional context is appreciated. I’ve been reading through the [URL='https://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/theory/threefold/']old FAQs[/URL]. I’m not fond of the challenge-based model that’s suggested because it feels like it’s set up protect play from “bad” gamism. The above seems to cover the rest of the conversation, but I still wanted to touch on this one separately still. It’s going to depend on the specifics of the scenario and how the fix is approached. If things aren’t working as intended, correcting the game state is respecting the integrity of the game. It’s like when someone makes a mistake on their turn in a board game, and they’re allowed to correct it. Maybe they shouldn’t have made the mistake in the first place, but are you getting the best competition if you don’t allow them to correct it? (Obviously, this can be abused, so there may need to be some discretion exercised.) [/QUOTE]

Verification