Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7374282" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, but I think this was an earlier topic of discussion. Unless you want a one hour campaign you probably want incremental steps along the way to final success in the 'big thing'. In BW there may not really be one single 'big thing' even for a PC, as the player could write new beliefs at any point (almost). They have a choice, and given how Story Now works what will happen is that the player will 'vote with his feet' to engage on different terms (reframe the context of engagement with his goals). I don't want to haggle in the bazaar, I go looking for a library! OK, so be it! The player wants lore. Maybe instead he'll make a contact, or whatever, he he'll PROBABLY find some sort of 'book place'. Or maybe he'll find a bard instead and learn some lore that way, but 'lore and books' are probably going to factor in, right? I mean in standard DM-centered play that wouldn't be unlikely either.I just consider what is happening. If there's really something at stake, the PC is directly going for some goal, taking some risk, there's some decision point with explicit consequence to the path of the narrative, then mechanics are normally engaged, so as to produce some uncertainty of outcome. In reference to what [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] said, HoML, my own 4e hack which I often run, has pretty explicit mechanics for resolving conflicts. They are always 4e-like General Challenges (or maybe combats, but this doesn't seem like one of those). Success and you end up with a useful item. Failure and you don't end up with a useful item. Its going to involve some number of checks, and some evolution of fictional position within that part of the narrative (scene). Frankly, if something is 'lesser', it doesn't seem to be 'worth' a challenge, then its not worth mechanics IMHO. I call it an interlude and its just narrated. This might be, for example, where something gets mentioned, like your example of the intersection. "You pass many other passageways branching in various directions as you travel."I don't think it is selfish to engage with the game in the way it is intended. You take on the persona of a character, right? Is it selfish to build hotels on Boardwalk and take everyone's money in Monopoly? No, its the point of the game. I mean, 'style counts' IMHO, so every instance could be judged on its own merits, but I think as long as the player is cooperating with everyone getting to share equally in the fun of playing there's no selfishness here.I think there's a quite obvious reductio ad absurdum here: No game is infinitely detailed. In every case some things are abstracted away and some choices are just assumed, or presumed to be inconsequential. Nobody cares which cobblestones you set foot on, "you advance 30' to the end of the hallway" works fine. This is the same principle at work. If the players want to say "as we move along we'll look for interesting things to investigate" then I think the GM is going to say something. It COULD be 'you see nothing', or its more likely some sort of relevant thing will come up.The GM is framing scenes. She COULD add some unimportant detail or something, but no, the GM's job is to introduce the relevant scenes. Its the players who decide what kind of material they want. 4e introduced much more solid mechanics into D&D, ones that aimed to provide quantifiable results and to relate to the fiction in predictable ways, in order to provide players with empowerment. This is generally not really controversial. Mechanics decide story points for a good reason, they're impartial, the players can understand what they're buying into and assess risk and know their capabilities.</blockquote>

Verification