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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 7435567" data-attributes="member: 20564">I think I would boil this down to a simpler point:If the game mechanics defines the players "winning" as the group overcoming obstacles, then getting to be more competent/powerful will be a player goal.If the game mechanics defines the players "winning" as telling the best story, then having lots of hooks and ways to mechanically use flaws and rising/falling tensionThe game mechanics shape this by what they reward.Picture 5e with the change that XP and loot (the positive mechanical reward systems) only came from what now grants Inspiration.  Oh, and the ability to rest, heal and come back from the dead (the responses to the negative mechanical penalties).  While it would be somewhat nonsensical because D&D isn't set up with a narrative to support it, it would shift the focus of the aggregated player base.  (Many players already do this without the need for mechanical support, that's why I put it in that way.)But there are RPGs built the other way.  The various Cortex games comes to mind, as well as FATE - ones where you get meta-currency by playing up your negative distinctions and flaws.  Heck, in FATE if you fail all-the-way voluntarily before you are mechanically forced to, you get to dictate some of the terms of your failure.  "The blow knocks me off the bridge, my body floating swiftly downriver..."The game Fiasco, is done in a single session and has no character advancement at all.  Playing to have the most Coen-Brothers messed up story is all the fun.  Sure you're roleplaying, but there's no reward for your character succeeding.</blockquote>

Verification