Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5467823" data-attributes="member: 957">Did I ever say &quot;determine&quot;?&nbsp; If I did it was sloppy.&nbsp; I wouldn't call it radically off base, but certainly a poor choice of term.&nbsp; &quot;Determine&quot; means it sets it exactly.&nbsp; I don't *think* I used that word and I know that a reading of what I have explained in detail would make it clear that is not my intended meaning.In your examples the mechanics always put limitations on the narrative and the narrative never trumps the mechanics.&nbsp; The mechanics are in control.&nbsp; Yes, you can still choose the specifics, but ONLY within the confines that the mechanics allow.&nbsp; The single most important question is: where do we stand on 6/3?&nbsp; Right, and that is a bad mechanic.&nbsp; I use random encounter tables.&nbsp; But there are major differences between how I use them and the scenario you defined.&nbsp; First, I don't use mechanically defined &quot;Level 10 Dungeons&quot;.&nbsp; I might have a lair of an Ogre Lord, who happens to be CR10.&nbsp; But the surroundings are not tied to CR10, they are tied to &quot;what would be in this Ogre Lord's lair?&quot;.Second, you presented your random encounter table in a vacuum.&nbsp;&nbsp; We could go on a whole separate debate on how I think that is just as bad as skill challenges.&nbsp; But I don't let the mechanics of a table control my narrative.&nbsp; If I use a random table for the Ogre Lord's lair, it will be a random table FOR the Ogre Lord's lair.&nbsp; I am saying that any time the mechanics and narrative are in conflict, the narrative should win and the mechanics should be thrown out the window.Well, I think the generalization exists mostly because you took the comment away from the broader context of the conversation.However, I'll ignore that and I'll answer this at two different levels.&nbsp; First, there are sacrifices in rpgs.&nbsp; At some point the narrative and the mechanics must meet and that is never perfect.&nbsp; Making sacrifices when there is no truly better solution is no justification for giving up where there is no need.Second, I disagree that the 1e DMG example maps to Skill Challenges.The fighter's ability to avoid the dragon's breath is part of the narrative character of the fighter.&nbsp; It is part of who he is.&nbsp; It is part of the definition of him as &quot;heroic&quot; individual of some degree of power.&nbsp; 6/3 does not define anything.&nbsp; It is a wholly arbitrary mechanical constraint.Hit points would have been a better example.&nbsp; Why can a Fighter 10 not die from a giant's smashing club that would turn a commoner to paste?&nbsp; You need to roll with the narrative there.&nbsp; But that narrative is all defined at its root by more narrative.&nbsp; This guy is a &quot;heroic&quot; fighter and can avoid/deflect/absorb/roll with/whatever the giant's attack.&nbsp; The HP mechanic, as clunky and problematic as it is, springs from a narrative goal.Or, even better yet, you could have thrown my own words back at me for a much better example.&nbsp; I've stated that whenever anyone makes a save vs. Medusa, I describe them as having not seen her.&nbsp; So, right there, I have admitted to making up narrative to fit the results.&nbsp; And, worse yet, I have admitted that avoiding the gaze should probably be a will save, and yet I am too lazy to stop just using Fort.&nbsp; So, busted, I am using a mechanic that makes no sense and making up narrative to cover for it.&nbsp; I plead guilty. But, I know one thing, I just reformed today.&nbsp; Will saves it is from now on.&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />But the important point is, hit points and saving throws and all sorts of mechanics tie back to a narrative foundation.&nbsp; Skill challenges and 6/3 do not.&nbsp; Yes, you can READILY build narrative to fit SCs, but their foundation is gamism and mechanics.&nbsp; They have been defended that way.&nbsp; They prevent &quot;I win&quot; buttons.&nbsp; They force the scenario to persist, they make certain everyone is included.&nbsp; All perfectly valid goals if they are important to you.&nbsp; And thus all perfectly complete justifications for use of SCs by people who see it that way.&nbsp; But, they are gamist and the mechanics are in control of the narrative.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="BryonD, post: 5467823, member: 957"] Did I ever say "determine"? If I did it was sloppy. I wouldn't call it radically off base, but certainly a poor choice of term. "Determine" means it sets it exactly. I don't *think* I used that word and I know that a reading of what I have explained in detail would make it clear that is not my intended meaning. In your examples the mechanics always put limitations on the narrative and the narrative never trumps the mechanics. The mechanics are in control. Yes, you can still choose the specifics, but ONLY within the confines that the mechanics allow. The single most important question is: where do we stand on 6/3? Right, and that is a bad mechanic. I use random encounter tables. But there are major differences between how I use them and the scenario you defined. First, I don't use mechanically defined "Level 10 Dungeons". I might have a lair of an Ogre Lord, who happens to be CR10. But the surroundings are not tied to CR10, they are tied to "what would be in this Ogre Lord's lair?". Second, you presented your random encounter table in a vacuum. We could go on a whole separate debate on how I think that is just as bad as skill challenges. But I don't let the mechanics of a table control my narrative. If I use a random table for the Ogre Lord's lair, it will be a random table FOR the Ogre Lord's lair. I am saying that any time the mechanics and narrative are in conflict, the narrative should win and the mechanics should be thrown out the window. Well, I think the generalization exists mostly because you took the comment away from the broader context of the conversation. However, I'll ignore that and I'll answer this at two different levels. First, there are sacrifices in rpgs. At some point the narrative and the mechanics must meet and that is never perfect. Making sacrifices when there is no truly better solution is no justification for giving up where there is no need. Second, I disagree that the 1e DMG example maps to Skill Challenges. The fighter's ability to avoid the dragon's breath is part of the narrative character of the fighter. It is part of who he is. It is part of the definition of him as "heroic" individual of some degree of power. 6/3 does not define anything. It is a wholly arbitrary mechanical constraint. Hit points would have been a better example. Why can a Fighter 10 not die from a giant's smashing club that would turn a commoner to paste? You need to roll with the narrative there. But that narrative is all defined at its root by more narrative. This guy is a "heroic" fighter and can avoid/deflect/absorb/roll with/whatever the giant's attack. The HP mechanic, as clunky and problematic as it is, springs from a narrative goal. Or, even better yet, you could have thrown my own words back at me for a much better example. I've stated that whenever anyone makes a save vs. Medusa, I describe them as having not seen her. So, right there, I have admitted to making up narrative to fit the results. And, worse yet, I have admitted that avoiding the gaze should probably be a will save, and yet I am too lazy to stop just using Fort. So, busted, I am using a mechanic that makes no sense and making up narrative to cover for it. I plead guilty. But, I know one thing, I just reformed today. Will saves it is from now on. :) But the important point is, hit points and saving throws and all sorts of mechanics tie back to a narrative foundation. Skill challenges and 6/3 do not. Yes, you can READILY build narrative to fit SCs, but their foundation is gamism and mechanics. They have been defended that way. They prevent "I win" buttons. They force the scenario to persist, they make certain everyone is included. All perfectly valid goals if they are important to you. And thus all perfectly complete justifications for use of SCs by people who see it that way. But, they are gamist and the mechanics are in control of the narrative. [/QUOTE]

Verification