Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 4171063" data-attributes="member: 42582">You seem to be assuming that what is narrated in an RPG doesn't matter - ie that there is no difference between narrating the skill attempt of "my ropeclimbing guy" and narrating the skill attempt of "my diplomancer". This is a bizarre assumption to make in the context of a discussion of RPG mechanics.In other words, the "meaning" of a skill challenge is introduced by player narration. If the players don't care for this - ie if they are indifferent to whether their PCs are ropeclimbing guys or diplomancers, and the various thematic or aesthetic implications of such differences - then they may not care for skill challenges.I don't think so. Option A says nothing about the importance of player narration.This makes no sense to me. The skills on a character sheet tell us what a PC is good at. From that we, as players of the game, can infer that much of the action in the game will involve the PC doing that thing (rather than some other thing at which s/he is not good).And of course the skill used does matter: it determines which narrations by a player are permitted and which are not. And it seems that these narrations may in turn feed back into the mechanics, via the GM's assignment of difficulty both to the check for the PC who's action is being narrated, and for future checks for other PCs.You seem to be inferring, from the fact that at the gaming table any skill may be used if the player makes a good case for it, that in the gameworld there is no causal relationship between tasks attempted and skills used. This inference is as fallacious as the following one: because at the table a GM can decide to put whatever monsters s/he wishes in her or his dungeon, in the gameworld there are no demographic constraints at work. The second inference ignores the fact that we infer demographic constraints from metagame dungeon-design choices. The first ignores the fact that we infer ingame causality from player skill challenge narration.No. As noted by Lost Soul in multiple posts, the sequence of narration colours what is possible. And it probably also effects the mechanical difficulty of subsequent skill checks.Do you mean in game causality? In that case the checks are so related, because previous narrations colour subsequent narrations. Do you mean causality at the game table? In that case the checks are also causally related, because (i) previous narrations must be accounted for by subsequent player narrations, and (ii) previous narrations are likely to affect the mechanical difficulty of certain subsequent skill checks.Are you suggesting it would make no difference to play to resolve combat by one die roll (computed out of the stats of the monsters and the PCs) rather than as currently done? That seems an odd view to take about RPG design. When one factors in that choices at time 1 can change the relevance of a given stat at time 2, the notion becomes even more bizarre, either for combat or skill challenges.You seem to be missing the part where the player explains how it is that climbing the tree brings the PCs closer to a solution. And then when the next player to take a turn explains how his or her PC is capitalising on the tree-climb-benefit.Why is it divorced from player authorial stance? Their narrations determine ingame causality, colour the action, and influence subsequent mechanical outcomes. What more "authorial stance" do you want?In fact, if the GM gets to decide whether or not my PC's attempt actually contributes to success, then I don't have authorial stance.There is nothing illogical about the progression of a skill challenge. The GM does not have a monopoly on the capacity for logical narration. Nor does it follow that "nothing further done in regards to the situation matters". The actions narrated by the players were actions consistent with resolving the challenge (and thus couldn't fail, given the challenge was over). If the actions narrated were not so consistent, but were rather such things as "swinging the corpse around by the heels and tossing it at each other" it would be quite a different matter.As to which is more fun, RQ or HeroWars, opinions differ. But your suggestion that HeroWars is unplayable, or produces illogical or untenable play, is absurd.The notion that 1st ed AD&D action resolution mechanics (if they can be called that - is persuading the GM a mechanic?) will produce more player participation and more intelligent roleplaying than the sort of mechanics that are common in contemporary narrativist RPGs is a little surprising to me. Do you have any evidence or personal experience that you base this hypothesis on?</blockquote>

Verification