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: 8504724" data-attributes="member: 42582">I am using "optional" in the same sense as Vincent Baker when he says that narration of certain aspects of the fiction, in In A Wicked Age, is "functionally optional".That is, (1) nothing in the game will stop working if you don't do the narration, and furthermore (2) if you do do the narration then the most striking thing is that it is irrelevant to subsequent resolution. Eg whether the GM narrates the Orc's hp loss as "reeling" or "parrying" or "a slashed forearm", nothing changes in the resolution of subsequent actions or the play of the game. It's no more significant than the flavour text on a magic card.Contrast that with (say) a result on a Rolemaster crit table, or the depletion of a location's hp in RQ.Why are we comparing DW and 5e D&D here? They are quite different in their procedures of play.For instance, in DW a player can respond to the GM's narration of the "satisfying sound of the crunching of the bone" by declaring that they want to identify the weak point to focus their attacks on it, triggering Discern Realities to look for a +1 to a subsequent Hack & Slash. Or they can take advantage of the GM narrating crunched bone to escape - the Goblin with the broken bone presumably can't give chase, so it seems no Defy Danger should be needed to flee (perhaps the GM narrates a soft move instead, of the Goblin calling its allies to chase the PCs).5e D&D combat doesn't resolve in this fashion. However much crunching of bone or slashing of forearm the GM narrates, the Orc's movement rate and action economy are not impeded. The only change in the fiction is that the Orc is "now close[r] to death" - but there is no manifestation of this in its capabilities etc (hence why Gygax suggested that an Orc's hit points, like a PC's, are primarily "luck" points until the last ones are knocked off.The fact that the GM might decide the Orc or Goblin pleads for its life isn't a sign of non-epiphenomenal leftward arrows. Nor is it a rightward arrow. It's the GM reading the cues - a hit-point tally - and making a decision about the fiction - the Goblin pleads for its life. But that decision was not mandated by any arrow in Baker's sense. The GM can equally decide that the Orc or Goblin is a fanatic; or that from the Orc or Goblin's point of view the hit point loss represents lucky blows by the PC, with the Orc or Goblin expecting their luck to turn any moment.I mean, this is from p 14 of the In A Wicked Age rulebook - Mekha has won the exchange, but has not scored an absolute victory so it will continue on (a little like reducing an Orc or Goblin's hp, but not to zero):In your answer, you have to say what happens and what Amek does, that prevents Mekha from carrying out his action, but leaves Amek at the disadvantage.This is <a href="http://lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/427" target="_blank">step 5 in Resolution System #3</a>. It's a leftward arrow that is <a href="http://www.lumpley.com/index.php/anyway/thread/456" target="_blank">"functionally optional"</a> because it doesn't generate any rightward arrows. The player of the character who thinks they will lose the conflict in In A Wicked Age can try and negotiate (see the rules on pp 14 to 19, esp p 19). This is a near-perfect analogue of the GM deciding that the Orc or Goblin begs for their life. So I don't understand why you're trying to argue that 5e D&D is any different from In A Wicked Age. Do you really think Vincent Baker has made a mistake in the application of his model to his own game?I have mentioned those. Repeatedly. I've also noted that they do not require any rightward pointing arrows. It is not a requirement of the play of Menacing Strike, for instance, that the player actually describe their PC doing or saying anything that is menacing. This contrasts with Apocalypse World, where Go Aggro actually requires making a thread; with Dungeon World, where Parley requires the character to actually promise or demonstrate something related to their leverage; or Burning Wheel's prayer and Rapier Wit mechanics.In 5e D&D there are no "right answers" in Dworkin's sense - there is neither the factual nor the normative foundation to generate right answers as Dworkin says they are generated in law. What is the "fictional trigger" for a STR (Athletics) check to climb a wall, in 5e D&D? No one can say anything beyond repeating the rules text (p 58 of the Basic PDF) thatThe DM calls for an ability check when a character or monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results.What is the determinant of something having "a chance of failure"? Is that intended to be extrapolated from the fiction? To what degree of chance? Why is no ability check called for when spells are cast? - Surely the recitation of those complex syllables and the making of those intricate gestures is something that might go wrong! But we all know that casting a spell does not require a check.This is a long, long way from "if you do it, you do it".</blockquote>

Verification