NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 7637397" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I think all they did was define how any apparent success could turn into a failure.  Their method was to assert something additional that I didn't claim about the scene.  The same can be done with 1000gp to turn it into a failure as well.  Basically they aren't arguing that the ruby can't be a success, but rather that giving the player what they want with a major downside isn't necessarily something that should be called a success.  So what actual reasons do you have for asserting that a 1000gp ruby can never be a success?  (not that a 1000gp ruby with a major downside is not a success).On a side note: if you can fail forward... I suppose it's also possible to succeed toward escalating conflict.  We could have a whole discussion around that idea.That's why I've been soo picky about whether you refer to challenging the player or the character.  Rolling a dice doesn't challenge a player.  The narration of a failure may challenge something the player previously regarded as true.  (Of course it seems the narration of a success could also do that).  In any case, you don't need dice to challenge the players conception of their character or the fictional world as the same narration that challenges the player can be achieved with no dice being rolled. The only fictional truth declaring an action does is set the truth to be that your character attempted to do X.  The player declares with explicitness something which becomes true.  The player never once suggested something that might be true.  The DM then determines what happens.  Was your attempt successful.  Was it uncertain.  Did you fail? I don't think that the GM always decides is controversial in D&D.  I mean their is a social contract and all and if the DM fails to honor that then the game will fall apart.  But even then it's still the DM deciding whether to abide by that or not.  And it's still him ultimately deciding.  But that's a side point.The important thing is:  When did the players suggest something?  They declare attempted actions.  Are you equating an attempted action declaration with a suggestion?Playing their character and seeing what happens.That's your assertion yes.  It's interesting to note that all the systems with good to have experiences are not D&D.  It's almost as if all of this is just a subtle way to tell everyone that they are having badwrongfun, without actually needing to call it that.But that aside, on an individual level I full agree that different systems can yield totally different experiences.  I'm not sure you can extrapolate that to everyone such that you can generally say this system only allows this experience and that system only allows that experience for everyone.  My repeated theme this whole thread has been that has been that different game systems play differently and appeal to different people, but that most everything you claim my favored system can't handle, that it actually can and does.  That it's rules light non-combat system offers greater opportunities in roleplaying than other more codified systems (not saying those other systems aren't fun).But it seems that anything positive said about D&D is just crapped on here as if the OP suggesting that all RPG's have pros and cons really means all RPG's except D&D have pros and cons."Thrill" is a very personal thing.  Some people would not find swimming in the ocean a thrill at all.  Fear and anxiety may be their response.  Whereas getting in the pool at the beach and swimming around may be quite thrilling to them.  Personally I much prefer the ocean and would agree that for me it's more thrilling.  I don't think it's objective fact that it's more thrilling though.My wife tends to dislike being in the ocean because she is afraid of it.  For her the pool is much more thrilling.That's a good example.  I agree with you that the game part is different in every RPG and can create a different feeling.  Constant Danger or relative safety with some danger etc.What has been asserted for most of this thread is that the roleplaying is superior in these other games.  That the roleplaying examples being mentioned aren't possible in D&D etc.  That's where the disagreement lies.  If you are just wanting to say X mechanic tends to make the game feel like Y for many people then I agree.  But that isn't what appears to be happening to me.  AWhich ignores my counterpoint that you don't need rules at all to generate pressure on the playerYou seem to be stuck between 2 ideas and conflating the 2.  It's definitely more dramatic to the player if there's dice being rolled and an observable possibility for success and failure.  That's the mechanic part I keep talking about.  It's fun for the game but serves to restrict the ways in which a player can roleplay his character (for the fun and drama of the game).  There's a tradeoff there - full unrestrictive roleplaying vs greater drama etc.  Sure.  They both can be wrong in very different ways.  In your case it's imagining that your experiences must be the same as everyone elses.  In mine it's imagining that I'm capable of imaging how a system plays without playing it.</blockquote>

Verification