NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8416073" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Its not the existence of Adv/Disadv that is trivial.  Its the deployment of it from first principles is what is trivial (in that its trivially done by gamesmasters and understood by players).  Its been used in many game systems.  TTRPG designers discovered a cognitive hack and have-reused it (5e isn't close to the first game to use it).  The 5e designers didn't have to design Adv/Disadv.  Its been done for a good long while and its stuck because it works.Its trivial because it works trivially.It is not the same as developing (say) a snowballing action resolution/move structure engine or a combat engine or a conflict resolution engine for things like climbing/journeying/parleying/infil-exfiling/rituals etc.  Those things are very different in terms of taxonomically sorting them out and the rigor and effort with which one has to design and iterate.As to the second part.Come on man.  We don't need to do this.  If you feel is someone is sincere you don't lead with "if you truly are curious...do x in good faith" and finish with "you're asking gotcha questions."  That is not the language of "I think you're sincere...have this benefit of the doubt!"You clearly don't think I'm being sincere.  That's fine.If anyone else would like to answer my sincere curiosities (rather than questioning my sincerity and then pointing me at a gigantic pool of essays to suss out my answers), what I'm SINCERELY looking for is answers to the following:* How are asymmetrical expertise relationships navigated (I do not agree that this only comes up in stray use-cases...my contention is that it is the persistent state of any TTRPG table at all times)?* How is trust established/nurtured when the dynamics of asymmetrical expertise relationships manifest at the table?  There are a lot of ways this can work out in real life (technocracies are governed by experts...but this is not necessarily the best approach) so I'm curious if there is either a default methodology or guiding principles here?* Humans encode language for conveying/navigating concepts and exchanges in their social systems.  You can't get around it.  That is our means for communally dealing with each other/the world.  Given that, how does the "encoding process" work for FKR?  Negotiate and iterate during table time (because this builds trust and protects against the cognitive overload/demands of assimilating a system outside of play - this is my best Steelman and I totally understand this), collectively remember it, and then re-deploy this same usage downstream when this conflict archetype comes up again?</blockquote>

Verification