Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 8630443" data-attributes="member: 22779">Now this I'm going to disagree with.Say you want to do a Ticking Clock scenario.  The PC's must travel from Point A to Point B or Bad things Will Happen.  <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    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Looking at the three approaches does highlight the strengths and weaknesses of each one.  In a heavily Sim game, these scenarios don't really work very well.  After all, it's mostly just a basic math question.  The train leaves at 5:25 traveling at 50 Km/h.  Can it reach the next stop, which is 100 km away in under 2 hours?  Well, yes.  It can.  And, in a Sim based game, the DM shouldn't be adding things to the game specifically to slow that train down because that's not really sim anymore.  Anything that slows that train down should arise from the setting itself and if there isn't any reason (outside of dramatic tension ones which are off the table) for the train to slow down, then the train doesn't slow down. In a more Gamist game, the question actually changes.  It's not Can the PC's arrive in time?  No. The question is now, "What resources will it cost to reach the destination on time and will the PC's be able to deal with the challenge at the destination after having spent resources?"  It's all about resource management and whatnot.  Which in turn, inspires different possible approaches - maybe a sort of gauntlet challenge where the point of play is to make it to the end; or maybe some sort of resource attrition to make the final challenge more challenging.  Or some combination of the two.  It's entirely possible that the players will never reach the destination, or, may reach the destination too weak to resolve the challenge, or maybe will blow through the entire thing by clever play.  It's one long challenge with lots of moving parts.  In a more Narrativist game, the question changes again.  Getting to the end isn't really in question at all.  You WILL get there in time.  The question is, "What are you willing to sacrifice to do so?"  Is your shining knight on his trusty steed willing to kill his horse to get there on time?  Are you willing to forced march through the night, leaving companions behind, knowing that they will likely die, to weak to defend themselves from the dangers pressing in?  Are you willing to make a deal with some Bad Thing and succeed at some great personal cost?  And the answering of those questions is the point of play.  Getting to the destination and stopping that Bad Thing isn't really the point.  That's (most likely) going to happen.  The question is, at what cost?So, no, I think the threefold model does a really good job when it's used the way it's meant to be used.  It identifies strengths and weaknesses in approaches and suggests possible ways forward.  Which is exactly what a model should do.</blockquote>

Verification