Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ratskinner" data-source="post: 7601762" data-attributes="member: 6688937">I tend to think that this is where playgoals come into it. That is, I'm not sure myself that Conflict Resolution is the best way to conduct Investigative Scenarios (or the Investigative Portions of other scenarios), because part of the point of play is to have the experience of putting the clues together. I think that's one of the big (and effective) realizations of the Gumshoe system. That said, much like we handwave fighting into a few die rolls, I don't think we need to require the players to have degrees in biology to RP the steps of getting a DNA analysis. But this is, IMO, the fundamental design problem/question of quasi-sim rpg design: What do you put in mechanical black boxes and what do you leave to the players to work out with actions and adjudication? A case can be made that in order to facilitate a less-intelligent player's portrayal of a great detective, or a less-charming player's portrayal of a smooth-talker, that mechanics should do the lifting there in the same way that things like Strength scores and BAB aid an unathletic player to portray a well-sinewed barbarian. However, in some intangible way, we tend to feel differently about those, even in play. There's just something less satisfying about a GM telling you &quot;You figure out...&quot; vs. describing combat actions.Although that's drifting a bit from Conflict Resolution.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ratskinner, post: 7601762, member: 6688937"] I tend to think that this is where playgoals come into it. That is, I'm not sure myself that Conflict Resolution is the best way to conduct Investigative Scenarios (or the Investigative Portions of other scenarios), because part of the point of play is to have the experience of putting the clues together. I think that's one of the big (and effective) realizations of the Gumshoe system. That said, much like we handwave fighting into a few die rolls, I don't think we need to require the players to have degrees in biology to RP the steps of getting a DNA analysis. But this is, IMO, the fundamental design problem/question of quasi-sim rpg design: What do you put in mechanical black boxes and what do you leave to the players to work out with actions and adjudication? A case can be made that in order to facilitate a less-intelligent player's portrayal of a great detective, or a less-charming player's portrayal of a smooth-talker, that mechanics should do the lifting there in the same way that things like Strength scores and BAB aid an unathletic player to portray a well-sinewed barbarian. However, in some intangible way, we tend to feel differently about those, even in play. There's just something less satisfying about a GM telling you "You figure out..." vs. describing combat actions. Although that's drifting a bit from Conflict Resolution. [/QUOTE]

Verification