Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8626266" data-attributes="member: 82106">No, that is to say that the TB2 game world is more like the board in Monopoly than it is like a map of Atlantic City, NJ c1929. It serves its purpose, as do the game's rules and procedures. Mapped areas are easy to traverse because we paid a substantial grind cost up front to earn that. Even so, if you think about it, what did we earn? It is just NARRATIVE FREEDOM as no matter where Awanye, Jasper, and Jacob are on the map, they will start hitting the grind! It is merely color, just like the names of the properties in Monopoly are mere color. Our PCs may now decree that they have hiked to the top of the mountain. This is fun and cool, we now get to have a story about exploring the other side, instead of repeatedly replaying a narrative of making the climb (until inevitably some bad dice luck killed us probably). I'd note that we could have, instead, constructed a permanent camp partway up, and stockpiled a bunch of food and whatnot there instead. I'm not sure of the relative grind costs and risks vs rewards of each of those options (mapping vs building base camps). Anyway, as you can see, this is all very gamist, but it also does serve to allow for a more interesting narrative, and we can make trade offs between the two. I think its POSSIBLE for a GM to arrange some similar kind of tradeoffs and whatnot in D&amp;D, and I would not think that D&amp;D is more or less realistic, overall. It could be that the GM will try to describe things more realistically, which isn't even an option in TB2, really. I'm happy about that actually, as I am of the mind that most appeals to 'realism' are actually cloaked forms of illusionist play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8626266, member: 82106"] No, that is to say that the TB2 game world is more like the board in Monopoly than it is like a map of Atlantic City, NJ c1929. It serves its purpose, as do the game's rules and procedures. Mapped areas are easy to traverse because we paid a substantial grind cost up front to earn that. Even so, if you think about it, what did we earn? It is just NARRATIVE FREEDOM as no matter where Awanye, Jasper, and Jacob are on the map, they will start hitting the grind! It is merely color, just like the names of the properties in Monopoly are mere color. Our PCs may now decree that they have hiked to the top of the mountain. This is fun and cool, we now get to have a story about exploring the other side, instead of repeatedly replaying a narrative of making the climb (until inevitably some bad dice luck killed us probably). I'd note that we could have, instead, constructed a permanent camp partway up, and stockpiled a bunch of food and whatnot there instead. I'm not sure of the relative grind costs and risks vs rewards of each of those options (mapping vs building base camps). Anyway, as you can see, this is all very gamist, but it also does serve to allow for a more interesting narrative, and we can make trade offs between the two. I think its POSSIBLE for a GM to arrange some similar kind of tradeoffs and whatnot in D&D, and I would not think that D&D is more or less realistic, overall. It could be that the GM will try to describe things more realistically, which isn't even an option in TB2, really. I'm happy about that actually, as I am of the mind that most appeals to 'realism' are actually cloaked forms of illusionist play. [/QUOTE]

Verification