Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9243466" data-attributes="member: 4937">I find that I've come to think about how an RPG works in a way that is very different than the conventional modern consensus, and it's exactly that &quot;satisfies ludonarrative verisimilitude&quot; that causes me to reject modern unified designs as the be all end all of good design.&nbsp; I would agree with the statement that your fortune system should be as unified as possible while still satisfying ludonarrative verisimilitude but what I feel is that the tasks being modelled vary so greatly in their underlying nature that if you attempt to resolve all of them with the same basic fortune test you will break ludonarative versimiltude badly.&nbsp; What differs from group to group is how fast they notice and how much they care.&nbsp; It turns out that 1e AD&amp;D with entirely different resolution mechanics for lifting something, jumping a distance, and having previously learned a bit of lore (among other things) might well have better ludonarrative verisimilitude than 3e trying to make those all fit within a standard D20 skill check.It turns out to me that when you are trying to have a single mechanic you tend to lose sight of what you are actually modeling and as a result design a system that doesn't model anything, and that gets to be a problem if verisimilitude is anywhere in your goals of play.1e AD&amp;D?&nbsp; That's a whole different area of discussion, because unarmed combat generally is more powerful than armed combat and you can generally dissuade players who want to use it from using it by threatening to allow the monsters to use the same rules.&nbsp; Zombies with grappling rules can be brutal in 1e AD&amp;D.&nbsp; D&amp;D 3e grappling rules would be on somewhat safer ground here, and I would say that rules that discourage grappling except in some narrow situations actually satisfy ludonarrative versimilitude.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 9243466, member: 4937"] I find that I've come to think about how an RPG works in a way that is very different than the conventional modern consensus, and it's exactly that "satisfies ludonarrative verisimilitude" that causes me to reject modern unified designs as the be all end all of good design. I would agree with the statement that your fortune system should be as unified as possible while still satisfying ludonarrative verisimilitude but what I feel is that the tasks being modelled vary so greatly in their underlying nature that if you attempt to resolve all of them with the same basic fortune test you will break ludonarative versimiltude badly. What differs from group to group is how fast they notice and how much they care. It turns out that 1e AD&D with entirely different resolution mechanics for lifting something, jumping a distance, and having previously learned a bit of lore (among other things) might well have better ludonarrative verisimilitude than 3e trying to make those all fit within a standard D20 skill check. It turns out to me that when you are trying to have a single mechanic you tend to lose sight of what you are actually modeling and as a result design a system that doesn't model anything, and that gets to be a problem if verisimilitude is anywhere in your goals of play. 1e AD&D? That's a whole different area of discussion, because unarmed combat generally is more powerful than armed combat and you can generally dissuade players who want to use it from using it by threatening to allow the monsters to use the same rules. Zombies with grappling rules can be brutal in 1e AD&D. D&D 3e grappling rules would be on somewhat safer ground here, and I would say that rules that discourage grappling except in some narrow situations actually satisfy ludonarrative versimilitude. [/QUOTE]

Verification