Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8653752" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'd probably talk about &quot;degrees&quot; rather than &quot;hybrid&quot;. But for full process sim you'd need to get rid of all 4 factors. So the whole situation (of trying to track down the demon origin) would be resolved not on a pacing-based timetable (4 successes before 3 failures) but by following the logic of what happens in the fiction - X causes Y causes Z, where the Xs, Ys and Zs reflect what the players say their PCs do, and eventually we end up at a place where either the PCs get what they want, or the players give up and have their PCs do something else.The idea of responding to failed checks by bringing in external factors with no in-fiction causal connection (like the thugs in the example) is also anathema to process sim. I've seen this come up a lot in discussions about 4e and other games that don't take a process sim approach.Just one example: I remember once suggesting, as a possible narration for a failed Diplomacy check in 4e, that it starts raining and so the crowd disperses rather than listening to the character. More than one poster responded that that was silly, because how can the character's poor diplomatic efforts cause it to rain! That's an example of posters with very strong process simulationist intuitions rejecting the alternative approach that I think was the norm for 4e D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8653752, member: 42582"] I'd probably talk about "degrees" rather than "hybrid". But for full process sim you'd need to get rid of all 4 factors. So the whole situation (of trying to track down the demon origin) would be resolved not on a pacing-based timetable (4 successes before 3 failures) but by following the logic of what happens in the fiction - X causes Y causes Z, where the Xs, Ys and Zs reflect what the players say their PCs do, and eventually we end up at a place where either the PCs get what they want, or the players give up and have their PCs do something else. The idea of responding to failed checks by bringing in external factors with no in-fiction causal connection (like the thugs in the example) is also anathema to process sim. I've seen this come up [i]a lot[/i] in discussions about 4e and other games that don't take a process sim approach. Just one example: I remember once suggesting, as a possible narration for a failed Diplomacy check in 4e, that it starts raining and so the crowd disperses rather than listening to the character. More than one poster responded that that was silly, because how can the character's poor diplomatic efforts cause it to rain! That's an example of posters with very strong process simulationist intuitions rejecting the alternative approach that I think was the norm for 4e D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification