Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="loverdrive" data-source="post: 8969548" data-attributes="member: 7027139">More or less, yes. Here, the crux of the point is that restricting the available options can emphasize, for the lack of a better term, system mastery. Whether it's "connected" to fiction or not, the way I see it, is secondary here.The larger theoretical framework is still very much in development, I'm in the process of honing my understanding of my preferences myself, and trying to explain them to other people is a part of that.As it stands, today, 20.03.2023, there're two largest pieces of the puzzle:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">A) Disconnecting resolution from fiction (as in, it doesn't matter what the character is actually doing as their situation, abilities and whatnot bear no influence on the outcome, and the rules don't try to model the game world in any sense, only being concerned with distributing narrative authority) emphasizes authorial intent of the players, allowing to concentrate on what is "cool" rather than on what is effective</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">B) Making the game fun makes the game more fun (duh), and creating completely arbitrary (from the perspective of fiction) rules is an easy way to create an engaging game without making it ludicrously complex</li> </ul>The two are possibly related, but it's still unclear to me how, and in this threat, I'm more concerned with the latter than the former.Maybe A) isn't actually desirable, and making the resolution mini-game harder or easier depending on fictional circumstances, but still allowing the player to compensate for it by system mastery would lead to the same general outcome, and it's just my frustration with randomness is speaking.Aside: most games focused on storytelling are rules-light and most rules-light games basically boil everything down to a roll of the dice, so maybe that's why I'm not fully satisfied with them. It needs more pondering.Emphasizing player skill in the resolution mini-game would allow the player to do hard things as a flex (?), giving suboptimal options more weight than mere chance.As an example, let's say I've created a cocky wizard Laura, and her character sheet says "Flaw: I can't back down from a challenge". A hostile NPC taunts her, like "You are nothing without your magic tricks, you witch!", and I, as a player who wants to see her cocky wizard being cocky on-screen, am tempted to respond with "Fine, I'm gonna beat you into a bloody pulp with nothing but my bare hands!".But, as a player playing the damn game, I know that this will just handicap me for no real change in the gameplay. I'll just roll dice with less chance of success, and this scene will also probably drag out longer than it needs to. It's a no-win situation, both bad for my character, and, more importantly, ####ing boring.If the resolution mini-game instead was, say, a fighting game in the vein of Tekken or Street Fighter, I could flex my skill and win without using the strongest combos, purely relying on my reaction, prediction and knowledge of the game mechanics, earning my right to portray my character the way I see fit and both creating a neat parallel between what the character is doing and what I'm doing and making the NPC's humiliation more "real" in the process.[HR][/HR]The biggest problem with me trying to piece all this together is that... I don't really play tabletop games other than RPGs. When I try to imagine mechanics that would work for my purposes (be short and demand skill), I imagine videogames (and mostly action games, as I don't really play strategy/tactics games either).I don't really have any other frame of reference. I'll need to expand my knowledge on smaller, faster boardgames that don't take hours, like Twilight Imperium and GoT, which make up the majority of my experience with boardgaming.</blockquote>

Verification