Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9099997" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Then I would say, in equal brevity, that such a thing cannot be. You will not be able to print enough text to achieve that end. Even if you spent a whole book doing that and nothing else.Just to be clear, which thread? I've been mostly checked out of the forum lately for IRL issues.Consider the following.Player A plays a Jongleur, which has various narrative implications via its description and artwork. The player knows the basics of the mechanics and is well-versed in the fundamental gameplay of the system, but only really understands things in narrative terms. So he reasons almost exclusively in those terms. "What makes sense for this character to do in this situation?" is, to him, a question about what kind of person this Jongleur is, what kind of people Jongleurs in general are, what would be reasonable or prudent, the relevant emotions and perhaps even drama, etc. From these things, Player A concludes that a cunning leap from the shadows, throwing knives at the enemy, is the best response to the current situation: and lo and behold, there are clean, well-defined mechanical solutions which meet that desire, and the player knows they will meet that desire. Had they not been there, however, he knows he can just ask the DM about how to improvise doing so, and that the rules work to make sure such improvising will be worthwhile.Meanwhile, Player 1 also plays a Jongleur (at a different table). But for her, the thematics and mechanics are reversed: her true understanding is in the mechanics. Story is something she works out separately and often more slowly. So she accounts for the various dangers before her, the positioning of her allies and enemies, the current advantages and disadvantages affecting her character, etc. From these, she concludes that the bonuses from attacking from a hidden position and of jumping down from a high place are mechanically sound strategy; she checks to see if she has any pre-defined moves which fit the bill. Awesome, she does! But even if she didn't, she could call on the improvised attack rules, which she knows are reasonably good (albeit not quite as good as a true tailor-made feature).But the DM, who happens to DM both of these games, looks at the short list of options both Player A and Player 1 picked...and realizes they are the same things. The exact same result, whether the player thought about it in narrative terms or mechanical terms.Because the narrative is the mechanics, and the mechanics are the narrative. The two brought into such harmony that it does not matter which you use to decide, both lead to the same place.Obviously that's the highest ideal and in practice it will be more complicated and less perfect, but it is a worthwhile goal.</blockquote>

Verification