Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9343711" data-attributes="member: 70468">“As far as I'm concerned, the purpose of X …” and “(I think) X should be …” seem to be saying the same thing to me. Baker’s phrasing is provocative, but I don’t think it’s hard to discern his meaning (so not esoteric). I also want to note that he’s drawing a contrast with live negotiation and honest collaboration, which he views as better if rules are not generating distinguishable outcomes. That seems similar to the “improv game” stuff you’ve mentioned (though based on prior conversations, I may not understand it or what you mean, so I could be wrong or very wrong about that).As far as reinterpretation goes, I think that’s fair in light of new developments, but I wouldn’t go so far as to use that to attack what past designers were doing. If that puts me more in the Death of the Author camp, then okay.When comes to disagreement with an author, that invites further examination. It may be the author was doing something unconsciously (like they knew intuitively rules needed to be doing something), or the reinterpreted lens is flawed or not applicable. I don’t see how we find out either without having that discussion.I like Gygaxian Naturalism as a design aesthetic. How the rules and game feels in play is important (which I think is in agreement with your own views), and I want my game to feel like things are grounded and plausible and have a place. However, I would not describe my homebrew system as a simulation game even though I want that mechanical aesthetic because the intended goal of play is something else (a low-prep hexcrawl).Are you familiar with <a href="https://grognardia.blogspot.com" target="_blank">Grognardia</a>? James talks about this stuff from time to time (e.g., <a href="https://grognardia.blogspot.com/2008/09/gygaxian-naturalism.html" target="_blank">“Gygaxian” Naturalism</a>). Incidentally, I’m pretty sure <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-term-gns-is-moronic-and-annoying-%E2%80%93-well-this-should-be-an-interesting-interview.704105/post-9342529" target="_blank">post #252</a> is referring to James’s <a href="http://grognardia.blogspot.com/search/label/house%20of%20worms" target="_blank">House of Worms</a> campaign. It’s a shame he doesn’t post recaps anymore because I really enjoyed them.I don’t want to get pulled into the writers’ room discussion, but I am interested in a clarification: is there a difference between stopping to clarify for the purpose of resolution or intent, and stopping to negotiate over how to proceed.For example, suppose I’m running D&D 3e and a player declares he wants to make a Search check. I then ask: okay, how are you doing that? What are you doing? Is that a writers’ room?Or suppose we’re playing my homebrew system, and a player wants to leave a letter for an NPC to influence his actions, and I foreground consequences as part of the resolution process (such as how the NPC might find the letter suspicious and react certain ways, or possibly not even notice it if the player wants to stick it in a stack of papers). The purpose of this is to make sure the player understands fully what their character would and to prevent misplays (i.e., avoid Mad Libs). Would you view that as writers’ room (in spite of my intention that there should be done as described in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/the-term-gns-is-moronic-and-annoying-%E2%80%93-well-this-should-be-an-interesting-interview.704105/post-9343470" target="_blank">post #296</a>)?Would a contrasting situation be a Blades in the Dark game where I’m scaling a building, but I suck at it. I then say to the GM I want to take a Devil’s Bargain (for another die) and suggest Heat as a consequence. The GM accepts, I get my die, and he describes how I’m drawing more attention to our score.</blockquote>

Verification