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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Caliburn101" data-source="post: 7467541" data-attributes="member: 6802178">No - they only answer a question you have fabricated by design or mistake as passed off as my position on the issue.What I actually said was that all choice-based mechanics lead to a choice of failure or success - you make it seem as if it has to be ONE HUNDREN PERCENT SUCCESS or ONE HUNDRED PERCENT FAILURE. I emphasise the 100% in text for you there to make it clear where my argument has been fundamentally misrepresented in your post.I never said degrees of success were not possible or not desirable. I did not make such a black and white statement. I would hope that you have made the mistake of thinking that all choices resulting success or failure means that all failures are utterly wretched and all successes are utter triumphs. That is in no way what I said.As for the rest of what you said, including all the examples you gave of degrees of success and narrative consequences, as it was all predicated on your erroneous opening statement they serve no purpose in relation to the argument, except to illustrate my point relevant to the second bolded text section above where you actually agree with me - openly admitting that all the examples are examples of pass or fail - precisely what I was saying all along!So you see, you can state that all choices will be either pass or fail without making these extreme 100% versions of the same. You just did it in your own post!This thread was about suspense in rpgs and as combat is a large part of rpgs, the suspense of not knowing where you will win is a big part of that. None of your examples provide that specific suspense as no surprise is involved. The actor chooses whether they succeed or not and the GM narrates the follow on consequences by choosing them. That's effectively writing a novel as cooperative author's - a form of cooperative storytelling, not roleplaying as it is most widely practiced. Emerikol in his #161 post clarifies that well.I suggest you look at permerton's post #163 quoting Ron Edwards and Eero Tuovinen who speak perfectly eloquently on the shortcomings of what you are talking about in the context of suspense. Do you think that Ron and Eero are somehow telling other people that they are gaming 'wrong', or are they just stating what is very well known already?The vast majority games have randomisation mechanics because the vast majority of players prefer them, and that the alternatives that exist whilst no less valid forms of storytelling entertainment have never, despite various incarnations, been anything other than niche games precisely because they are not the preferred mode of gaming. Likewise, combat is very common in rpgs and narrative combat, or combat with no chance of death (where, as it is so very commonly the point of combat) would be dull, and lacking suspense. That's my opinion, clearly stated, repeatedly, and I am far from the only one to hold it.Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean they think what you do with your own game is wrong.</blockquote>

Verification