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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8501714" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think Vincent Baker's analysis is very fuzzy. I think it's pretty clear.I just played a little wargame with my daughter. Our formations "attacked" one another. I can't recall if we said the words My formation attacks yours but we could have. But that would all be cubes-to-cubes, because the wargame has no fiction beyond flavour text in the same fashion as M:tG, Monopoly, etc.In D&D play, when a player says I attack X, is that a change to the fiction? Or just a manipulation of cues? There is no general answer. Sometimes it's one, sometimes another. You need to be in the room, at the table, looking at the play to see what was going on.Baker, in his example (which is, after all, his stipulation), Baker is stipulating that a player has changed the fiction such that your character attacks mine (see step 2 of resolution system #1). But suppose at a table a player picks up their token and moves it on a battle map and knocks another token while saying "I attack!" That is a manipulation of the cues, which then generates a leftward arrow (in the fiction, the character has moved and attacked someone) which then in turn generates a rightward arrow.There is no "test" here, consistent or otherwise, beyond examining what the participants actually do, and then seeing how the procedures/system they are using generate arrows between fiction and fiction, between fiction and cues (left or right), or between cues and cues.</blockquote>

Verification