Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9318187" data-attributes="member: 42582">Your post reminded me of how, in my 4e D&amp;D game, the player of the wizard/invoker would make decisions about what was a ritual and what was not, how magical effects worked, etc, and then declare actions around that, applying his +2 bonus to skill checks involving rituals when it fitted, and not applying it when it didn't. This would be anathema at Gygax's table, I imagine, but in our game it really helped bring magic in the setting to life.I can't comment on how hard it is, but I see it done fairly often. As [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] says, it requires the players to invest in the fiction.There are definitely things that can make it harder, such as a sense that the stakes of failure are character death and/or losing the game and/or &quot;having to sit out of the game* (in a lot of fairly classic RPG play these overlap). I've often posted, in the past 15 years, that what facilitates &quot;story now&quot; play is the players not being afraid to fail. Which is about how consequences for failure are established, and how there can be setbacks for the character that keep the player invested rather than having lost, or being excluded from play.&nbsp;[USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s answer to this was pretty good. From my own extensive experience in both AD&amp;D and RM, the way consequences are established and unfold are one part of it (eg nothing kills of thematic focus like spending 15 or 30 minutes tracking recovery after a big combat is resolved). Another is that the mechanics themselves make parts of the fiction relevant that have no thematic salience (eg how many feet thick is the castle wall) while not making salient those parts of the fiction that matter thematically.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9318187, member: 42582"] Your post reminded me of how, in my 4e D&D game, the player of the wizard/invoker would make decisions about what was a ritual and what was not, how magical effects worked, etc, and then declare actions around that, applying his +2 bonus to skill checks involving rituals when it fitted, and not applying it when it didn't. This would be anathema at Gygax's table, I imagine, but in our game it really helped bring magic in the setting to life. I can't comment on how hard it is, but I see it done fairly often. As [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] says, it requires the players to invest in the fiction. There are definitely things that can make it [I]harder[/I], such as a sense that the stakes of failure are [I]character death[/I] and/or [I]losing the game[/I] and/or "having to sit out of the game* (in a lot of fairly classic RPG play these overlap). I've often posted, in the past 15 years, that what facilitates "story now" play is the players [I]not being afraid to fail[/I]. Which is about how consequences for failure are established, and how there can be [I]setbacks for the character[/I] that keep the [I]player[/I] invested rather than having lost, or being excluded from play. [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER]'s answer to this was pretty good. From my own extensive experience in both AD&D and RM, the way consequences are established and unfold are one part of it (eg nothing kills of thematic focus like spending 15 or 30 minutes tracking recovery after a big combat is resolved). Another is that the mechanics themselves make parts of the fiction relevant that have no thematic salience (eg how many feet thick is the castle wall) while not making salient those parts of the fiction that matter thematically. [/QUOTE]

Verification