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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mallus" data-source="post: 5996148" data-attributes="member: 3887">The way I look at it, the reason fatigue points are part of the world in the first place is clear: to limit the number of times a PC can use their super-moves, ie it's explicitly gamist, and not a modeling methodology. If you were really attempting to model fatigue, the fatigue system would cover more kinds of physical exertion that commonly occur during combat, like moving/running in armor --and not just flashy combat super-moves-- but that would, I think everyone would agree, bog things down. It's opening a big ole can of worms.So they're explicitly part of the game world, except in the ways they aren't (when they're just a transparent metagame mechanic). To my mind, they're not far removed from something like AEDU, ie a marginal difference, not a categorical one. Agreed. But it's not a big deal for me, personally, and I've never encountered a player whose sense of character immersion, or lack of, was rooted in mechanical minutia -- immersion was always a product of larger-scale campaign intangibles; setting, NPCs, quality of DM, plot. I've only encountered people like that online <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />. For the record, I treat the rules/mechanics as approximations of the in-game world (and not their 'physics'). I start from the assumption it's my job to connect the rules procedures with the in-game fiction. This is how I made my peace with several of D&D's traditional core mechanics, ie hit points, saving throws, Vancian casting. When I DM, the "reality" of the setting comes from words I speak aloud. The rules are just a bunch of guidelines for resolving low-level actions. They aren't, and aren't intended to be, the primary lens by which I-as-my-character understand the fictional world the game takes place in. The rules are what I-as-a-player need to know, in order to get things done. Trying to explore the fiction of the game world as a player via the mechanics strikes me as being as sensible as running a painting under an election microscope in order to gain an appreciation of art. I imagine a small, select group of people might find that enterprise terrifically interesting -- but the general museum-going public? Not so much...  I really like the idea a single set of (simple) guidelines (rules) can be clothed in many different fictions -- that way, I don't need to design custom mechanics for each one of my settings/campaigns. I'd say almost all powers rely on that, regardless of edition.Try describing how a person with a sword fights a bear or a dinosaur without the players & DM helping out with the fictional positioning, or what a saving throw looks like, or, well, you get the idea. Come to think of it, I'd say the willful act of 'positioning' the raw output of the game's procedures/algorithms in the shared in-game fiction is a big part of RPG play. A huge part. The rules and the players and the DM are all partners in creation.They're baked-in... but still half-baked! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> (because they only pretends to address modeling something, ie exertion)Cool! I still think it's a terrible critical framework, but that's mainly because of JA's canny refusal to apply his critiques to mechanics he personally approves of. Well, that and his insistence the close connection between a mechanic and the fiction --without regard to outcomes??!-- produces a stronger sense of immersion. To which I ask: immersion in what?</blockquote>

Verification