Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8278498" data-attributes="member: 71699">That's true. My goals in doing so are twofold. 1) I want to understand games better. What are games? What is the role of rules and mechanics in sustaining whatever it is we decide are games? Can games possibly be defined in a way that excludes rules and mechanics (my view is not, but there are definitions of game that might allow it.) SP is a really interesting construct for examining in that regard.2) I want to understand what SP might be useful for (if it is useful)? When we think about how difficult D&D should be, we're naturally also drawn to thinking about where difficulty lies. As well as, as you say, what the outcome or consequences of difficulty should be? (I believe something can be difficult, without being consequential, as an aside. Not perhaps interestingly, but in construction.)With games especially I agree that there are no binaries. Famously, even! However, when you say...It seems like we want not just narrative consequences that matter to roleplay, but stakes and consequences that matter to SP. When I read the examples and consider the expressed exclusions (and note I am not arguing with those) then there is a strong sense of the terms of SP being best satisfied by players describing actions that their DM deems effective (or not) rather than relying on application of mechanics.I'm not sure that a game can be truly difficult on those terms, because it would be like describing that you hold a full house, without having to make that so through calculated discarding. That is to say that SP results - and only can result - in stakes and consequences that matter to roleplay! (And of course, I suspect that can be mitigated to the extent that the game is addressed as game, so it becomes important to understand what wiggle room is supposed to exist.)</blockquote>

Verification