Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6248936" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION], thanks for the tips. It's more helpful than starting a thread on another site to slander someone.But  [MENTION=3400]billd91[/MENTION] is hardly a novice in discussions on this topic. He's been posting posts critical of non-process-simulation rules for the past several years, and has participated in many if not most of the big threads discussing these issues.If either of you wants more examples of rules that prioritise ingame causal logic as a constraint on resolution:* rules in which oozes can't be tripped; * rules in which inspiration healing can't restore a character from a swoon or unconsciousness; * rules in which you must touch someone first in order to grapple them; * rules in which bonus stacking is regulated by identifying the nature of the bonus within the fiction (eg morale vs luck vs competence etc etc); * rules in which character's have a chance of dying during PC generation because, after all, growing up can be a tough business!If either of you wants more examples of rules that do not prioritise ingame causal logic as a constraint on resolution:* rules in which a failed Nature check, during an escape, can be narrated as the PC suddenly encountering a gorge across his/her path; * rules in which a successful save againt a dragon's breath by a fighter chained to a rockface can be narrated as finding a small niche in the rock and using it to take some shelter; * rules in which a blow from a sword which is in mechanical terms identical (eg same to hit roll, same damage roll) can be narrated as a light scratch, or a blow that would have felled a lesser swordsman but was able to be ducked by the skilled PC, or as a decapitation, depending upon the mechanical state of the target of the blow; * rules in which bonus stacking is governed by the source of the bonus in mechanical elements (feats vs powers vs items) regardless of the infiction character of the bonus (training vs blessing vs dumb luck etc); * rules in which the players can produce changes in the shared fiction without their PC having him-/herself having to take actions, within the fiction, that would produce that change.If neither of you has ever encountered the "realist" criticism of such classic D&D mechanics as hit points and saving throws, from players of games like Runequest, Hero, Rolemaster, GURPS etc I'd be surprised. This has been a commonplace in the fantasy RPGing community for over 30 years.If neither of you has noticed that the change in saving throws from AD&D to 3E involved rewriting the mechanic from one which does not model or care about ingame causal logic, to one which does - therefore leaving hit points and levels as the two main non-process-sim elements of 3E - I'd be less surprised, because it is one aspect of that edition transiation that is rarely commented upon in these terms. Once it's pointed out, though, and if you reread Gygax's discussion of saving throws in his DMG, then I think it's pretty clear. (Eg He gives, as an example of what a poison save might involve, the sucking of the poison out of the wound. I don't think anyone ever interepreted a 3E Fort save in that way.)Now imagine a segment of game play in which the PC is negotiating with the mayor. The player makes a Diplomacy check, and it fails: the PC has therefore failed to persuade the mayor. Here are some ways in which the GM might narrate that failure:* Ignorant of local customs, you say something that is insulting to the mayor and she walks off; * Ignorant of local customs, you say something that is insulting to the mayor and she walks off; * You spit on the mayor in the course of your impassioned address - offended, she walks off; * As you are addressing the mayor, it starts raining heavily, and she goes inside to take shelter before you can finish stating your case; * After you finish your address to the mayor, she says "I feel the force of your point, but unfortunately I swore an oath to my late father never to do as you now ask me to - so sadly I cannot aid you".If you find yourself objecting to Schroedinger's oaths, Schroedingers's rain or even Schroedinger's customs, than probably you favour ingame causal logic as a constraint on action resolution.</blockquote>

Verification