Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8238770" data-attributes="member: 16814">I understand how you're using it, but the terms you've used are not actually descriptive of what you're doing and can apply easily to other approaches.&nbsp; You're trying to claim &quot;fidelity to the reality&quot; as some romanticized wording for your approach because this sounds really good.&nbsp; What you're actually doing is saying that the GM's preconception of the fiction is binding on the action resolution process.&nbsp; This is clinical, though, and doesn't sound as good as &quot;fidelity to the reality&quot; so it gets strong pushback, and the attempt to claim &quot;fidelity&quot; is made to elevate your approach.&nbsp; This, though, is obscuring what's actually happening at the table.&nbsp; If the players in your game search for a secret door, and you haven't previously placed on there in your preconception of the fiction, then there is no secret door there.&nbsp; However, this isn't any more 'real' that a different GM using mechanics to determine if a door does or doesn't exist, because as far as 'real' goes, that only matters if it makes sense that a door can be there, not really if one is or not.&nbsp; If it doesn't make sense that a door can be there, then neither system will generate one, and the &quot;fidelity to the reality&quot; is the same.My name is right there, and doesn't have a 'd' in it anywhere.&nbsp; I know I've recently pointed this out to you, so, at this point, it's looking like it's more an intentional attempt to get a rise rather than an honest mistake.&nbsp; Surely, though, this isn't the case?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8238770, member: 16814"] I understand how you're using it, but the terms you've used are not actually descriptive of what you're doing and can apply easily to other approaches. You're trying to claim "fidelity to the reality" as some romanticized wording for your approach because this sounds really good. What you're actually doing is saying that the GM's preconception of the fiction is binding on the action resolution process. This is clinical, though, and doesn't sound as good as "fidelity to the reality" so it gets strong pushback, and the attempt to claim "fidelity" is made to elevate your approach. This, though, is obscuring what's actually happening at the table. If the players in your game search for a secret door, and you haven't previously placed on there in your preconception of the fiction, then there is no secret door there. However, this isn't any more 'real' that a different GM using mechanics to determine if a door does or doesn't exist, because as far as 'real' goes, that only matters if it makes sense that a door can be there, not really if one is or not. If it doesn't make sense that a door can be there, then neither system will generate one, and the "fidelity to the reality" is the same. My name is right there, and doesn't have a 'd' in it anywhere. I know I've recently pointed this out to you, so, at this point, it's looking like it's more an intentional attempt to get a rise rather than an honest mistake. Surely, though, this isn't the case? [/QUOTE]

Verification