Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 6188254" data-attributes="member: 85870">I think perhaps this is more in line with the intent of my original question--is there something about the core d20 resolution mechanic, some sort of inherent bias towards a particular type of game construction, that pretty much limits it from ever straying outside the D&amp;D &quot;genus&quot; of games? It's interesting that you bring up FATE, just because the entire d20 mechanic seems to run counter to the 2d6 + / - concept of FATE, which is designed to totally emphasize what the character is. It's not so much if a character is &quot;capable&quot; or &quot;allowed&quot; to do something mechanically in FATE---it's a question of whether the character &quot;is the type of person&quot; who'd be making the attempt in the first place? This is one of the things I think pemerton has vocalized very well over the last year about the dichotomy between 3.x's &quot;simulationist&quot; intentions wrapped in what is in reality a &quot;gonzo&quot; set of fantasy genre conceits. In D&amp;D, characters don't roll the dice on many checks simply because there's &quot;no chance of realistic success.&quot; I've never played FATE, so if someone out there can correct me on this please feel free, but in FATE it seems that you may or may not make a check based on &quot;success probability,&quot; but it's MORE likely that you'd choose to make a check based on how the character is interacting with the world / NPC (tagging or compelling). It's more about the character's &quot;place&quot; in the game world, and how the character perceives their own &quot;nature&quot; than it is about the mechanics underpinning success probability.I guess what I'm saying is that to this point, the core d20 mechanic has never really looked into changing that basic input / output strucure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 6188254, member: 85870"] I think perhaps this is more in line with the intent of my original question--is there something about the core d20 resolution mechanic, some sort of inherent bias towards a particular type of game construction, that pretty much limits it from ever straying outside the D&D "genus" of games? It's interesting that you bring up FATE, just because the entire d20 mechanic seems to run counter to the 2d6 + / - concept of FATE, which is designed to totally emphasize what the character [I]is. [/I]It's not so much if a character is "capable" or "allowed" to do something mechanically in FATE---it's a question of whether the character "is the type of person" who'd be making the attempt in the first place? This is one of the things I think pemerton has vocalized very well over the last year about the dichotomy between 3.x's "simulationist" intentions wrapped in what is in reality a "gonzo" set of fantasy genre conceits. In D&D, characters don't roll the dice on many checks simply because there's "no chance of realistic success." I've never played FATE, so if someone out there can correct me on this please feel free, but in FATE it seems that you may or may not make a check based on "success probability," but it's MORE likely that you'd choose to make a check based on how the character is interacting with the world / NPC (tagging or compelling). It's more about the character's "place" in the game world, and how the character perceives their own "nature" than it is about the mechanics underpinning success probability. I guess what I'm saying is that to this point, the core d20 mechanic has never really looked into changing that basic input / output strucure. [/QUOTE]

Verification