Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7407271" data-attributes="member: 82106">I would categorize them by the ends and not by the means. Nor is it possible to categorize all game systems in this way, you must also consider the means and techniques used in play. Some game systems might unequivocally not contain the concept of character death, but for many systems this is a point of variance between games. 4e would be an example of this.I would answer the same as above.I wouldn't consider this axis to be relevant to the topic. I wouldn't consider this to be relevant.I think you are trying to imply that only in the former could the game be truly 'hard'. I think you confuse resource management for a wider category of games in which problem-solving is a factor. This is a much wider range than is encompassed by any 'CaW/CaS' axis.I think there are a variety of responses to different axes of variation in games and game designs. Again, you are caught in oppositional thinking in which being an advocate for the PCs is the same thing as "letting them win" some sort of opposed game. This is a mistaken proposition in Story Now play. I would say something different, which is that the goals within the fiction are simply tools used to fulfill the agendas of the players, who do so to enjoy the game. All goals are united in some sense. Opposition is a tool, admittedly a useful one! Sometimes you can go from frying pan to fire, sure. Examples aren't exhaustive catalogs.If a scene follows another scene with a fictional period of years between then presumably the previous scene established a trajectory leading to the framing of this next scene in which it made dramatic sense for time to intervene. If the player wishes to describe that intervening time, that's fine. In HoML I would call this an 'Interlude'. Within such an interlude there would be no dice tossed and no dramatic action. It could be that the extent of the time between scenes could be determined by the content of the interlude (IE it lasts until the player describes the character re-engaging with some fiction by taking up a conflict). It could also simply be a narrative device handled in the scene transition by the GM at more or less length. Presumably this would comply with the desires of the players. Another way to describe the oppositional puzzle-game-based classical D&D thinking. I think 'Gygax Thinking' has a less controversial ring to it than '2-dimensional thinking' (but maybe a less explicit reference to the differences in thinking).</blockquote>

Verification