Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5957742" data-attributes="member: 54877">It's no wonder that you don't like fortune in the middle, since you want cause and effect to be reflected directly in the mechanics, and you approach fortune in the middle as rationalizing what just happened. I do like fortune in the middle, because I prefer a heavy "develop in play", effects-based style, and treat the roll as a springboard for roleplaying instead of the expression of prior roleplaying. It's the difference between:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I roleplay a diplomacy conversation.  I roll a check.  If my roleplaying was "good", the DM gives me a benefit (or adjust the floor of the roll or any number of things).  If my roleplaying was "bad", the DM gives me a penalty.  If average, I'm at the mercy of the dice.  Then all factors now considered, we roll to see what happened.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">I start roleplaying a diplomacy conversation.  I roll a check early, with any modifiers that apply for the situation, character abilities, rough plan of what I said, etc.  If I roll well, then I continue roleplaying that I'm doing well.  If I roll poorly, then I continue roleplaying that I'm not doing so hot.</li> </ul>I suppose there could also be a fortune at the front, third option, but I think that would be a very strange bird in this particular example.  So I'll just note it and move on. The first one is about using your roleplaying to get what you want (whether that be tactical, strategic, driving the story to a certain place that interests you, etc.)  The fun is in the struggle to get your way.  The second one is about establishing broad parameters for what might happen, then discovering it, then roleplaying that.  The fun is in roleplaying improvisation against a surprise.   Using either method while trying to get to the other fun is likely to not work well, and cause the participants to not enjoy the method very much.  It's also the difference between playing jazz from a set score versus improvisational jazz.  Same players, same instruments, maybe even the same song (at least as a starting place)--very different experience.  The first is easier to teach and do--and don't get me wrong, is fun.  It's also likely to be more appreciated by outside observers.  The latter is a special kind of fun that you simply don't get many other ways.  It also happens to direct the enjoyment almost entirely towards the group of participants, which is why it maps so readily to roleplaying games.</blockquote>

Verification