Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5898667" data-attributes="member: 54877">The crucial downside is that natural language mapping of fiction to system requires some subtle sleight of hand. Human brains being pretty adept at exactly that kind of language adapation, it can and does readily work in gaming groups. The danger is in thinking that picking the &quot;correct&quot; words for the mechanics is going to do the heavy lifting. &nbsp;Whether someone says, &quot;I use Intimidate on the orc,&quot; or &quot;I try to intimidate the orc,&quot; the term &quot;intimidate&quot; is here representing both the fiction and the mechanic. One word used, two conceptual mappings. Use the first example, the group has to fill in the fiction. Use the second, the group has to fill in the mechanic.&nbsp;There may very well be aethetic and even good game play reasons for preferring the second, but it is not a free lunch. You can see the costs in something like a beginner 3E game where a character wants to &quot;help set the sails on our sloop&quot;. That maps to Profession: Sailor or Use Rope or something else? That is Aid Another or a skill check? (Not that 3E is any way special in this regard. It's a common issue.)&nbsp;The more abstract and general the mappings (either way), the easier it is to internalize them, and thus blur the distinctions in play, in a consistent manner. The more specific the mappings, the easier it is to blur the distinctions in a given case, but with some unpleasant jarrings when the natural language mappings temporarily fail the group.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 5898667, member: 54877"] The crucial downside is that natural language mapping of fiction to system requires some subtle sleight of hand. Human brains being pretty adept at exactly that kind of language adapation, it can and does readily work in gaming groups. The danger is in thinking that picking the "correct" words for the mechanics is going to do the heavy lifting. Whether someone says, "I use Intimidate on the orc," or "I try to intimidate the orc," the term "intimidate" is here representing both the fiction and the mechanic. One word used, two conceptual mappings. Use the first example, the group has to fill in the fiction. Use the second, the group has to fill in the mechanic. There may very well be aethetic and even good game play reasons for preferring the second, but it is not a free lunch. You can see the costs in something like a beginner 3E game where a character wants to "help set the sails on our sloop". That maps to Profession: Sailor or Use Rope or something else? That is Aid Another or a skill check? (Not that 3E is any way special in this regard. It's a common issue.) The more abstract and general the mappings (either way), the easier it is to internalize them, and thus blur the distinctions in play, in a consistent manner. The more specific the mappings, the easier it is to blur the distinctions in a given case, but with some unpleasant jarrings when the natural language mappings temporarily fail the group. [/QUOTE]

Verification