Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9333283" data-attributes="member: 7025508">There isn't one. This is the sort of acausal process I identified earlier, and it is rare in D&D. So narrativism requires or at least benefits from such acausality? It is fine if it does, but can we just admit it?I mean this again seems that we need to take the scope of what's possible outside ot that which the PCs can actually decide. Like the chracters can certainly decide not to resist, in which case serious violence seems significantly unlikely, but making some sort of meat decision that we will have a physical confrontation, where there is no possibility of violence seems like a differnt thing. So does narrativism require or benefit from this sort of author stance instead of character level decision making?The social rules from DMG might be a good starting point for this. Granted, they're pretty simple so some extrapolation is required. In any case, it would seem to me to fall in the purview of the persuasion skill to manipulate an another person in this manner.Again, social rules could cover this. Social rules could cover this too, but at least I wouldn't want to. I don't want them to be binding to PCs and this is the sort of situation that is best handled via pure roleplay. At the point we are determining the actions of the characters via rules having players in the first place starts to seem superfluous. We are more in the territory of randomised story generation. Yeah, there definitely were some concrete examples! But I am not sure what you exactly mean with this staking thing. I feel that in trad game players can stake all sort of things, what is at stake is just usually implied via fictional positioning instead of having a meta discussion about it. Though of course it is sometimes fro the GM to ask "What you're trying to accomplish by this" if things are unclear. As there has been a lot of talk that references staking, I think it might be good idea to elaborate on bit what exactly we mean by that.Yeah, sure. That's why I generally do not like terribly crunchy mechanics. D&D is already a bit too much for my liking, though the out of combat skill+dice vs DC is pretty much my ideal RPG base system structure. Whilst low stakes poking certainly is something that happens, it is not all that happens. You of course still can have high stakes situations, but like I said, they're established more via fictional positioning rather than meta discussion.Well, "be fan" is just hella vague and IIRC the actual description is pretty vague too. Also that of course is not the only framing structure available in trad games.Well, I think in more trad setup "announcing badness" relies on temporal, spatial and causal cues. And sure, those necessarily do not result most thematically appropriate timing, but then again, I'm not sure that randomisation via dice rolls does either. And of course the PCs can respond to badness, it is just that there is no one size fits all solution. Different badnesses require different response.So I totally see how getting bogged down to simulationistic considerations can damage thematic ones. Perfectly fair. But the player always needing to be able to response badness seems more like gamist consideration rather than narrative one. Bad thing happened and you could do nothing about it is a perfectly fine narrative, it just means that the narrative we are dealing with here is the fallout of the event rather than preventing the event. When looking at typical nar mechanics I totally see how they result Baker's (a) rising conflict. The rest are more about the fiction surrounding the mechanics though, and I obviously do not think that such fiction can only be connected to these kind of mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification