Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4996209" data-attributes="member: 22779">Sorry, no.  There is no role assumption in Monopoly.  Nothing in the rules suggests that you would change your style of play based on whether you are the shoe or the battleship or the car.  There are no mechanics in place whatsoever that changes the game depending on whatever role you choose. That being said, you could certainly change Monopoly INTO a role playing game if you so chose.  However, the game, as it is written is most certainly not because there are no roles within the game.  Or rather, everyone is playing the exact identical role, which amounts to the same thing.Buh what?  When did I assert that SA doesn't use dice?  <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid    :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" />I think that your cursory reading of the rules has possibly been less than exhaustive.In SA, at any point in time, the player can declare the scenario over.  He can use his twists to resolve the scenario to a satisfactory conclusion.  Any time.Now, the game does include task resolution mechanics (and kinda neat ones at that) for the times when the player doesn't want to end the scenario.  The goal of the game is to see how long you can keep the scenario in play.  So long as everyone is enjoying the scenario, no one has any reason to spend a twist to resolve the action.  However, if someone decides that he or she doesn't like what's happening right now, he can decide to change the scenario or simply declare the scenario or even resolved.Going back to the Batman vs Joker example as it might be played out in SA.  You have the scenario of Batman hunting for the Joker.  The players play it out as per the mechanics, doing all sorts of Batmanny things.  So long as everyone at the table is enjoying the scenario, everything's groovy and it plays out pretty much like a standard RPG.  However, a few hours into the scenario, the player hits a brick wall.  He's painted himself into a corner and the Joker is going to escape.The player spends a twist, narrates the effects, and the Joker is caught.  Now, there might be negative consequences here, because likely that will take a pretty large number of twists to accomplish and the only way to gain more twists is to take negative consequences for yourself.And, now we get back into the idea of exploring the moral implications and whatnot of Batman's activities as his negative consequences result in the death of Jim Gordon (a very real possibilty in this system).Or, take another example, taking the ring to Mount Doom.  The entire Lord of the Rings could be played out as an extended conflict.  In SA, conflicts are defined by rounds, same as most RPG's, but the length of a round varies depending on the conflict.  A round can easily be a month or even a year, depending on the nature of the conflict.  As you go back and forth, the participants lose reserve in each lost contest (the amount can vary from various sources) and when a participant runs out of reserve, they lose the conflict and the winner dictates the victory conditions.It is also possible to regain reserve by switching into a faster time slice to resolve a separate, but related conflict.  Thus Mines of Moria would be a faster conflict possibly to gain resource.  So one and so forth.However, since Frodo is a PC and Sauran is not, at any point in time, Frodo's player can simply declare the ring goes into the volcano.  Depending on how many twists he had to spend there, the negative consequences could easily be the loss of a finger and the Harrowing of the Shire.As I said, the goal of the game isn't to determine the resolution of the event.  The event will be resolved.  It can't not be resolved.  Any player at any time can declare it so.  The goal of the game is to keep it interesting enough to the participants that no one does that.  So long as everyone is engaged in the scenario and no one wants to pull the rip cord, the scenario continues in a fairly traditional way.Now, all that being said, in actual play, it rarely goes that way.  For one thing, it's a pretty rare player who will just declare that he hates the scenario and chucks it.  Most players are willing to try to make the scenario enjoyable for everyone.  The Frodo player just nixing the entire LotR is fairly unlikely.  But, it is entirely possible.Probably the most telling example of what I'm talking about comes from the DM's advice section in the back:Sorry for the wall of text.  I was away from the boards for a couple of days, and this has been churning around in my brain.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

Verification