Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5158107" data-attributes="member: 80487">From what I have seen, the &quot;modern&quot; answer to &quot;Why must numbers go up?&quot; is illusion.Look, I don't see the rhetorical question as directed against Superhero Sam getting 40 more points of this or +7 to that so we can properly represent his being Super relative to Normal Joe.The objection I see is to the sleight of hand of always jacking up other numbers so that Superhero Sam doesn't get a chance to shine by making anything look easy. More specifically, I see (and offer) objection to the negation of player agency -- negation in the name of &quot;protecting&quot; players from the &quot;vulnerability to GM discretion&quot; that freedom to choose actual strategies, and reap the yields, might entail. It replaces &quot;vulnerability to&quot; with &quot;total dependence upon&quot;!Well, that doesn't look so appealing, does it? If it's laid out plainly that the odds and stakes are just the same and nothing changes but window dressing with no actual relevance to the conduct of the game, then the natives might get restless.So, let's make the numbers bigger to give the illusion of change while everything is frozen in place. &quot;Here's the good news about inflation: In the future, everyone will be a millionaire!&quot;It's not like having Pick Locks 90% means you'll actually have a 90% chance to pick a lock. It's not as +12 to hit means, as it used to mean, that you'll actually hit more often. Nope. As a consequence of that and other innovations, more hit points just mean longer combats.&quot;I'll be seeing you!&quot;</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5158107, member: 80487"] From what I have seen, the "modern" answer to "Why must numbers go up?" is [b]illusion[/b]. Look, I don't see the rhetorical question as directed against Superhero Sam getting 40 more points of this or +7 to that so we can properly represent his being Super relative to Normal Joe. The objection I see is to the sleight of hand of always jacking up other numbers so that Superhero Sam doesn't get a chance to shine by making anything look easy. More specifically, I see (and offer) objection to the negation of player agency -- negation in the name of "protecting" players from the "vulnerability to GM discretion" that freedom to choose actual strategies, and reap the yields, might entail. It replaces "vulnerability to" with "total dependence upon"! Well, that doesn't look so appealing, does it? If it's laid out plainly that the odds and stakes are just the same and nothing changes but window dressing with no actual relevance to the conduct of the game, then the natives might get restless. So, let's make the numbers bigger to give the illusion of change while everything is frozen in place. "Here's the good news about inflation: In the future, [i]everyone[/i] will be a millionaire!" It's not like having Pick Locks 90% means you'll actually [i]have a 90% chance to pick a lock[/i]. It's not as +12 to hit means, as it used to mean, that you'll actually hit more often. Nope. As a consequence of that and other innovations, more hit points just mean longer combats. "I'll be seeing you!" [/QUOTE]

Verification