Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Rogue Agent" data-source="post: 5722153" data-attributes="member: 6673496">Speaking from experience, the success of this method depends heavily on the mechanics of the game.If the mechanics of the game are directly associated with the game world, then players can make decisions in the context of the game world and the GM can translate those decisions directly to their associated mechanical representations.If the mechanics of the game are dissociated from the game world -- in other words, if the game requires you to make frequent mechanical decisions which have no meaning in the context of the game world -- then this becomes much more difficult to achieve, if not impossible.Another thing to watch out for are abilities like Power Attack in 3E D&amp;D. The conceptual trade-off of &quot;less accuracy while making a more powerful attack&quot; is associated, but the mechanic is based on making a specific mechanical decision about the size of that trade-off that can create a stumbling block.Similar problems can also be seen in character creation: You're going to run into fewer problems if you can make broad decisions (&quot;your character is good at swimming and basketweaving&quot;) instead of trying to communicate the nuances of a point-buy in non-mechanical terms.With all that being said: In practice, I've found that this isn't actually all that beneficial. I get the theoretical appeal, but I've found it's better (when I'm in the mood for this sort of thing) to just play heavily associated games so that the mechanical decisions are as closely related to character decisions as possible. Even if everything goes smoothly, I've generally found that all the extra bookkeeping for the GM (who is now managing the character sheets of 4-6 different PCs and possibly rolling dice for them as well) tends to degrade their focus.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Rogue Agent, post: 5722153, member: 6673496"] Speaking from experience, the success of this method depends heavily on the mechanics of the game. If the mechanics of the game are directly associated with the game world, then players can make decisions in the context of the game world and the GM can translate those decisions directly to their associated mechanical representations. If the mechanics of the game are dissociated from the game world -- in other words, if the game requires you to make frequent mechanical decisions which have no meaning in the context of the game world -- then this becomes much more difficult to achieve, if not impossible. Another thing to watch out for are abilities like Power Attack in 3E D&D. The conceptual trade-off of "less accuracy while making a more powerful attack" is associated, but the mechanic is based on making a specific mechanical decision about the size of that trade-off that can create a stumbling block. Similar problems can also be seen in character creation: You're going to run into fewer problems if you can make broad decisions ("your character is good at swimming and basketweaving") instead of trying to communicate the nuances of a point-buy in non-mechanical terms. With all that being said: In practice, I've found that this isn't actually all that beneficial. I get the theoretical appeal, but I've found it's better (when I'm in the mood for this sort of thing) to just play heavily associated games so that the mechanical decisions are as closely related to character decisions as possible. Even if everything goes smoothly, I've generally found that all the extra bookkeeping for the GM (who is now managing the character sheets of 4-6 different PCs and possibly rolling dice for them as well) tends to degrade their focus. [/QUOTE]

Verification