Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9209662" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Right!&nbsp; To me whatever mechanics exist to determine the meaning of that roll or rolls like that - that's a model.I agree there's a differentiation there.&nbsp; I wouldn't attribute it to 'modeling' vs 'not modeling' though.&nbsp; Encumbrance is a model.&nbsp; So is the scaling proficiency bonus by level.&nbsp; But so is the Athletics check, the attack roll, the perception check.&nbsp; Etc.&nbsp; I think you nailed the difference in describing it as willingness to risk outcomes they don't want.&nbsp; That to me seems the fundamental difference in those types of mechanics.Yea - I think whatever you all are meaning by 'constraining the negotiation' isn't what I mean by negotiation.&nbsp; When the player rolls his athletics check to jump over the obstacle, there isn't a negotiation happening IMO.&nbsp; The DM determines the difficulty of jumping over the obstacle, the player rolls and if the DC is met then he jumps over the obstacle.&nbsp; *In a game like Blades in the dark there is explicitly negotiation up until the roll - so it's not that negotiation cannot ever happen in this process - it's just not present in the process of many RPG's.The definition of model I gave was -<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">A mechanical model simply takes an input and yields a result that has meaning assigned to it.</li>
</ol>To me the act of assigning meaning is exactly what you are talking about.&nbsp; Different rules structures assign meaning differentlyI agree that creating the unwelcome and unwanted in the game's fiction is (at least from the PC's perspective) an absolutely essential part of RPG rules.&nbsp; I still would go with the purpose is to model - its just inherent that in some of those models there must be an engine that creates unwelcome and unwanted fiction.IMO.&nbsp; All a roll is - is randomization.&nbsp; It's the specific mechanics behind the roll and what they model and the resulting meaning that has true value and impact.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9209662, member: 6795602"] Right! To me whatever mechanics exist to determine the meaning of that roll or rolls like that - that's a model. I agree there's a differentiation there. I wouldn't attribute it to 'modeling' vs 'not modeling' though. Encumbrance is a model. So is the scaling proficiency bonus by level. But so is the Athletics check, the attack roll, the perception check. Etc. I think you nailed the difference in describing it as willingness to risk outcomes they don't want. That to me seems the fundamental difference in those types of mechanics. Yea - I think whatever you all are meaning by 'constraining the negotiation' isn't what I mean by negotiation. When the player rolls his athletics check to jump over the obstacle, there isn't a negotiation happening IMO. The DM determines the difficulty of jumping over the obstacle, the player rolls and if the DC is met then he jumps over the obstacle. *In a game like Blades in the dark there is explicitly negotiation up until the roll - so it's not that negotiation cannot ever happen in this process - it's just not present in the process of many RPG's. The definition of model I gave was - [LIST=1] [*]A mechanical model simply takes an input and yields a result[B] that has meaning assigned to it.[/B] [/LIST] To me the act of assigning meaning is exactly what you are talking about. Different rules structures assign meaning differently I agree that creating the unwelcome and unwanted in the game's fiction is (at least from the PC's perspective) an absolutely essential part of RPG rules. I still would go with the purpose is to model - its just inherent that in some of those models there must be an engine that creates unwelcome and unwanted fiction. IMO. All a roll is - is randomization. It's the specific mechanics behind the roll and what they model and the resulting meaning that has true value and impact. [/QUOTE]

Verification