Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7768558" data-attributes="member: 177">I expect this is just careless phrasing on your part, but no, having a game where you need the player's permission to kill the character is not &quot;doing it wrong&quot; in any absolute sense.&nbsp; It is just a different type of game.Okay, so, there's something interesting...&nbsp; you generally describe loss in terms of mechanical effectiveness.&nbsp; The only ting to lose... is how awesome you are in the game action resolution systems.&nbsp; Ah, the absolutes come out.&nbsp; That's not a good sign for the discussion.FATE, a decidedly New School kind of game, has mechanics that can easily deal with any kind of long-term mechanical loss to the character - including limbs.&nbsp; Heck, long-term psychical impacts to the character is an intrinsic part of the FATE core damage system.&nbsp; Don't want to die?&nbsp; Take an Aspect instead, with a clearly stated negative mechanical impact.1E D&amp;D?&nbsp; Did not have unambiguous rules for what to do when you lose a limb or an eye.&nbsp; There's a bit of (probably unintentional) eliding happening hereWhen we talk about success and failure, we have to be clear: Succeed or fail at what?&nbsp; We have to be consistent if we want to understand. Are we talkign about succeedign on an action, or in achieving a goal - these aren't the same thing, but you're swapping between them above.Let us say you are trying to climb a rope.An Old School game is largely geared to simulation, by way of resolution of fairly atomic individual actions.&nbsp; Either you climb it, or you don't.In a new school game, you try to climb the rope.&nbsp; And now we ask why were you trying to climb the rope, as we are considering what happens if you fail, and also what interesting things might happen around you climbing the rope.&nbsp; The shades of success and failure are not only fail-forward, but also generating content in a way we know is relevant to current action.&nbsp; At least philosophically, if not outright mechanically, the context in which the action is attempted matters in a New School game, where it generally doesn't in an Old School game. This is perhaps connected with how you most naturally denoted losses.&nbsp; An Old School game loss is more often a loss *in terms of the simulation* because that's what the game deals in.&nbsp; A New School game will more often address loss more in terms of goals, because the game style includes the goals/context mattering to play overall.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7768558, member: 177"] I expect this is just careless phrasing on your part, but no, having a game where you need the player's permission to kill the character is not "doing it wrong" in any absolute sense. It is just a different type of game. Okay, so, there's something interesting... you generally describe loss in terms of mechanical effectiveness. The only ting to lose... is how awesome you are in the game action resolution systems. Ah, the absolutes come out. That's not a good sign for the discussion. FATE, a decidedly New School kind of game, has mechanics that can easily deal with any kind of long-term mechanical loss to the character - including limbs. Heck, long-term psychical impacts to the character is an intrinsic part of the FATE core damage system. Don't want to die? Take an Aspect instead, with a clearly stated negative mechanical impact. 1E D&D? Did not have unambiguous rules for what to do when you lose a limb or an eye. There's a bit of (probably unintentional) eliding happening here When we talk about success and failure, we have to be clear: Succeed or fail [i]at what[/i]? We have to be consistent if we want to understand. Are we talkign about succeedign on an action, or in achieving a goal - these aren't the same thing, but you're swapping between them above. Let us say you are trying to climb a rope. An Old School game is largely geared to simulation, by way of resolution of fairly atomic individual actions. Either you climb it, or you don't. In a new school game, you try to climb the rope. And now we ask why were you trying to climb the rope, as we are considering what happens if you fail, and also what interesting things might happen around you climbing the rope. The shades of success and failure are not only fail-forward, but also generating content in a way we know is relevant to current action. At least philosophically, if not outright mechanically, the context in which the action is attempted matters in a New School game, where it generally doesn't in an Old School game. This is perhaps connected with how you most naturally denoted losses. An Old School game loss is more often a loss *in terms of the simulation* because that's what the game deals in. A New School game will more often address loss more in terms of goals, because the game style includes the goals/context mattering to play overall. [/QUOTE]

Verification