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: 3815009" data-attributes="member: 42582">RC introduced the notion of "mechanical significance", as a potential property of an encounter: in RC's sense an encounter is "mechanically significant" if it affects the party's resources available for subsequent encounters (whether by addition or attrition).I believe I may have introduced the notion of "mechanical interest", meaning any sort of interest or pleasure derived in play through deployment of the mechanics of the game. 1st ed AD&D has very little mechanical interest in this sense, just because its mechanics are so sparse, and a great deal of action resolution essentially bypasses them, being mediated directly between the players and the GM. Core 3E has quite a lot of mechanics, both in character build and action resolution, but does not allow for the sort of mechanical interest that the introducion of per-encounter resources will permit, because it does not give players a sufficient range of complex choices during the course of encounter resolution.Potentially hugely significant. I don't play M&M either, but from Jackelope King's description it sounds similar to games like HeroQuest or (under a certain reading of its ruleset) HARP, in which Action/Hero/Fate Points are earned by engaging with certain goals/themes specified by the player for his or her character, and may be spent in order to pursue success/development of those same goals/themes. In such a system, every time a player earns or spends an Action Point, they are getting what they came to the gaming table for, namely, the experience of plot or thematic exploration that they want to engage in.In a system in which PCs don't die, they pursue goals, succeed or fail at them, forge or destroy relationships with one another, with NPCs, or with other elements of the gameworld. They prosper or decline.As for the issue of "pursuit of objectives": currently one of the PCs in my RM campaign, a quiet scholar and weaponsmith who also happens to be a master of several twin-swords fighting styles, is attempting to woo an enchantress that the party rescued from a demon's castle on the ethereal plane. As part of his pursuit of this objective, over the past two levels he has developed a skill rank in Seduction at each level - this mechanical change to the character corresponds, in the game world, to an attempt by the PC to improve his ability to relate romantically to other people. Eventually, the PC will have to make his intentions plain to this NPC. When he does, she may or may not rebuff him. If she does, he won't die - but for obvious reasons, he may not be able to try again! - at least, not until he does something that makes her change her mind about him.Now this is only one small sub-plot of a much bigger campaign, but I use it to illustrate a more general point: if the gameworld changes in response to the actions taken by the PC, then "objectives" will not remain static in response to the PCs' interactions with them, whether or not the PCs die. It also illustrates how mechanics can feature as an element of play (in this case, the character build mechanics) without PC death being a relevant consideration.Another general point: many games are not "infiltrate and loot" games of the sort that 1st ed AD&D (judging from the play advice given in the 2nd half of the PHB) is primarily aimed at. For these different sorts of game, there are all sorts of ways of failing without dying.And me.I answered them in detail.A core D&D example of the sort of mechanical interest that per-encounter resources permit cannot be given, because the requisite mechanics do not exist in core D&D. Jackelope King has given examples derived from M&M. I have given examples derived from RM, as well as examples from CCGs, and analogies drawing on non-gaming aspects of life which also provide pleasure through participation in complex activities.This is not true. First, by analogy: because it is possible for me to have a philosophical argument with an undergraduate student which I cannot lose, but which is nevertheless interesting, it does not follow that I can have such an argument with my 17-month-old daughter.Second, to tackle the issue directly: it may be that a mechanically interesting "clear win" encounter acquires its interest from having certain properties which the example (4 20ths vs 4 kobolds) does not have. One such property might be this: the certainty of the win is a consequence of clever decision making by the players. Thus, I suggested in my reply that a better example might substitute stone giants for kobolds.</blockquote>

Verification