Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3462531" data-attributes="member: 6777">Malcolm, you keep asserting that I want mechanics to protect me from the Evil GM, or that I'm painting the GM as the &quot;bad guy&quot; and players as the &quot;good.&quot; Maybe I'm just not being clear, because I don't think that's what I'm describing. I think your friendship issue is really some other argument that you're kind of bolting on to this thread.The &quot;Joss Points&quot; example I gave was just pseudocode, not an implementation. If we map it to FATE3/SotC, as I understand it, Aspects aren't always negatively invoked by the GM and positively by the players. It can go either way from either side of the screen. What I like is that it's proceduralized and shared, and that it's a story-making mechanic, not a probability-fudging one.The group I'm currently playing Serenity with are a &quot;traditional group of buddies.&quot; It hasn't prevented the system from frustrating some of us. It could be that our group is just not grokking how the system should be run, but is that our issue or the game's? I dunno. Heck, it could just be taste.P.S., I did not bring up Mearls in the context of my Mother-may-I comment. However, if you read his blog entry that coined his usage, you'll see that he is absolutely talking about what I am here.For reference:And, from the comments:And I know you're not the biggest Chris Chinn fan, but...This is the perspective I'm coming from, especially the way Sorensen puts it. I don't want the kind of game I'm trying to describe because I'm afraid of relying on trust, as you imply. I want that kind of game specifically to encourage trust. For me, that seems a better path to creating an experience that will live up to the Firefly series. Obviously, that may not work for everybody.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Apologies to everyone for getting so far off topic.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="buzz, post: 3462531, member: 6777"] Malcolm, you keep asserting that I want mechanics to protect me from the Evil GM, or that I'm painting the GM as the "bad guy" and players as the "good." Maybe I'm just not being clear, because I don't think that's what I'm describing. I think your friendship issue is really some other argument that you're kind of bolting on to this thread. The "Joss Points" example I gave was just pseudocode, not an implementation. If we map it to FATE3/SotC, as I understand it, Aspects aren't always negatively invoked by the GM and positively by the players. It can go either way from either side of the screen. What I like is that it's proceduralized and shared, and that it's a story-making mechanic, not a probability-fudging one. The group I'm currently playing [i]Serenity[/i] with are a "traditional group of buddies." It hasn't prevented the system from frustrating some of us. It could be that our group is just not grokking how the system should be run, but is that our issue or the game's? I dunno. Heck, it could just be taste. P.S., I did not bring up Mearls in the context of my Mother-may-I comment. However, if you read his blog entry that coined his usage, you'll see that he is absolutely talking about what I am here. For reference: And, from the comments: And I know you're not the biggest Chris Chinn fan, but... This is the perspective I'm coming from, especially the way Sorensen puts it. I don't want the kind of game I'm trying to describe because I'm [I]afraid[/I] of relying on trust, as you imply. I want that kind of game specifically to [i]encourage[/i] trust. For me, that seems a better path to creating an experience that will live up to the [I]Firefly[/I] series. Obviously, that may not work for everybody. :) Apologies to everyone for getting so far off topic. [/QUOTE]

Verification