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="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5472173" data-attributes="member: 18280">True.Erm....I'm not convinced that this is true.Your paraphrase shows that you understand part of what BryonD is saying, but that you are missing crucial parts as well.Let me try:There are two views of mechanics.  In one case, the mechanics are an attempt to model the fictional reality of the imagined game space, and, wherever and whenever they fail to do so, the mechanics are replaced either by GM judgement or some other mechanic.  I.e., the fictional reality defines the mechanics used. In the second case, the mechanics constrain the imagined game space, effectively becoming the physics of that fictional reality.  In this case, the mechanics cannot fail to model the fictional reality, because the mechanics define the fictional reality.  So, in BryonD's case, the mechanics flow from the narrative choices that the player has made during character generation, but only determine how effective those choices are so long as the result is sensible within the context of the fictional reality.  Where a dissonance occurs, the fictional reality wins.  Every time. Both views on mechanics say "You want to make a good jumper, so you use the mechanics to build a good jumper."  The first case says, if the mechanics fail, we'll use some other means to model the fictional reality.  The second case, and only the second case, says that the mechanics determine how good of a jumper you actually are. 1st case:  Come and Get It doesn't affect all kinds of creatures, because it doesn't make sense within the fictional reality for them to be affected. 2nd case:  Come and Get It affects all creatures, 'cause that's what the rules say. 1st case:  A really clever idea resolves the situation. 2nd case:  The situation cannot yet be resolved because the number of successes over failures has not yet been reached. All games are part the first case and part the second case, but where your emphasis lies drastically changes the experience and outcome of game play.  4e emphasizes the 2nd case (attempting to use it in the 1st case gimps classes like the fighter, but you could make your own fiction-first hack to do so, or borrow LostSoul's).  1e emphasizes the 1st case, both explicitly in the rules, and through the presentation of rules that the DM must choose between when adjudicating what is applicable in a given situation.  You could run 1e using the 2nd case, but I think you'd have to houserule even more heavily than you would to run 4e in the 1st case.As always, BryonD is welcome to correct me if I misunderstand his point.You like to call yourself a "Big Tent Kind of Guy", Hussar.  C'mon.  Expand your tent a little.  You don't have to want to play in case 1 to understand it!  <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=":)" />RC</blockquote>

Verification