Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8250706" data-attributes="member: 42582">In RM you very often have to roll to find out what happens when you do that thing. But if what you're doing is casting a teleport spell so you and your friends can get from place A to place B as part of a journey, it's hard for me to see it as resolving a conflict because there may not be very much at stake besides the possible consequences that the spell failure system imposes. There is no &quot;say 'yes'&quot; option in RM is played as written. (I GMed a lot of RM and it never occurred to me to say &quot;yes&quot; to that sort of thing. Part of the point of those mechanics is to find out what happens next.)In the Traveller context there are random tables which I do think of as resolution mechanics in some contexts: eg when a player declares I spend the week at the starport lounge waiting to see if I encounter a patron then the random patron table is part of the resolution mechanism for that (it gets consulted if the encounter check is made: 5+ on 1 die, or 4+ if the character has Carousing-1+).A bit more borderline is the throw against world Law Level to avoid being pulled over by the police or similar in a given day of activity (-1 to the throw if you are actually doing illegal things).These Traveller-related thoughts involve a degree of reconceptualisation on my part: Classic Traveller as presented doesn't distinguish between content introduction as a component of framing and content introduction as a component of resolution. It tends to assume that the referee just knows how to do this stuff.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8250706, member: 42582"] In RM you very often have to roll to find out [I]what happens when you do that thing[/I]. But if what you're doing is casting a teleport spell so you and your friends can get from place A to place B as part of a journey, it's hard for me to see it as [I]resolving a conflict [/I]because there may not be very much at stake [I]besides the possible consequences that the spell failure system imposes[/I]. There is no "say 'yes'" option in RM is played as written. (I GMed a lot of RM and it never occurred to me to say "yes" to that sort of thing. Part of the point of those mechanics is to find out what happens next.) In the Traveller context there are random tables which I do think of as resolution mechanics in some contexts: eg when a player declares [I]I spend the week at the starport lounge waiting to see if I encounter a patron [/I]then the random patron table is part of the resolution mechanism for that (it gets consulted if the encounter check is made: 5+ on 1 die, or 4+ if the character has Carousing-1+). A bit more borderline is the throw against world Law Level to avoid being pulled over by the police or similar in a given day of activity (-1 to the throw if you are actually doing illegal things). These Traveller-related thoughts involve a degree of reconceptualisation on my part: Classic Traveller as presented doesn't distinguish between content introduction as a component of framing and content introduction as a component of resolution. It tends to assume that the referee just knows how to do this stuff. [/QUOTE]

Verification