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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7637887" data-attributes="member: 996">Yeah, the actual play experience will be subjective, so looking for the difference there will, at most, uncover some dusty system artifacts that might reveal which system was used, but nothing much more.  Now, whether via system procedures, or via some naïve-RP/freestyle/make-believe consensus, the same persons could have established the same elements of the fiction in the same order. Good.  It's nice being the one using confusing terms for a change. ;P Well, I don't think I'm trying to draw a distinction between the two.  I am trying to draw a distinction between the, I guess 'high level,' experience of roleplaying, and the, I guess 'low'/detailed level, experiencing of system artifacts.No.   In that one example alluded to a transcript, /because it was hypothetically happening on UseNet/ and text is what we had (and still have, here) to work with.  The example could have as easily been of play in progress.I /could/ be, yes. I'll happily acknowledge that for 10000 trials of stomping orcs in D&D, you'll get 9999 that feel like D&D to them, and for 10000 trials of freestyle orc-stomping you might get IDK, 17... so /could be/ the same experience.  So, maybe that's part of what I'm observing:  a system might deliver similar experiences consistently, while freestyle consistency is based only on the consistency of the group doing it. I would suspect not. But I am comfortable holding /extremely/ unpopular views. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />Nod.  Yet you wouldn't get the same result for a "Social Pillar" scene, would you?  Even though they're both just fictional events that can be modeled by mechanics.That's why I think these discussions get so fouled up.  Because they quickly become not about the system, which can be objectively described, evaluated & analyzed, but about "the experience" or "the agenda" or the something-in-Forge-speak-which-means-the-reverse-ogive-of-what-it-sounds-like-it-means - which quickly becomes totally subjective.So, really, it's fine to say "System X has no resolution mechanic for Y."  But, as soon as you extend that to "So whaddaya system-X weasels do when Y?!? Huh! Suckers!!!"  our even a less overtly offensive "You can't do Y in system X" or, worse, a more intellectual "you cant duplicate the experince of doing Y in system Z using system X," you're getting on a retreat-into-subjectivity merry-go-round.  Because, of course, the weasels /can/ do Y, they can Y all they want, and have done, on numerous occasions, in fact, system X is ideal for Y precisely because it leaves them the freedom to Y as they judge best fits their group.  Yeah. You can't argue with logic like that.  For obvious reasons</blockquote>

Verification