Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7769207" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot;D&amp;D doesn't really have anything like that so if you want to run a game with the episodic and dramatic feel, you'd have to either (a) have a really good DM capable of making that happen or (b) run the risk of things feeling very railroaded. &quot;See, to me, I think it's a telling thing that apparently the same thing done &quot;by gm spending chips&quot; rather than by &quot;gm runs the npcs and the world&quot; can be taken as just expected in one case and railroading in the other. Back in &quot;yee olde days&quot; when the ground rumbled in the background as we delved deeper it wasnt &quot;railroading&quot; it was &quot;ok, lets not stay longer than we have to cuz this baby dont seem like it's as dormant as they said.&quot; No chips. No gripes about offenses to our agency. Just part of the challenge and fun.Then at some point, agency, sandboxing, railroading became something some folks got worried about so now we get full circle back to the GM decides the mountain is dangerous long as he has chips and that makes it new school and not railroady?I am not trying to be dismissive of that transition or the concerns but I find it amusing that the *not really new* threat chips (see velow) basically just serve as a beard to give GMs the same choices they had from day one - with the exact same risks of in the hands of a not &quot;really good&quot; gm.To me, the downside of this is the embedding of the chip economy so strongly into challenge resolution that it really puts the chips as the top focus - both in success and consequence but as the top reward that matter - I spotlight STA as an example. Sèms more like the celebration after a conflict is not over &quot;we saved the hostages&quot; but &quot;we got 5 momentum.&quot; I think a word balloon graph of the whole run of Shield of Tomorrow STA likely has &quot;momentum&quot; as the most used word in the entire series. Sidebar...&quot;Not really new&quot; - To me it seems like the threat chips in play dont turn out to be that different than a system mechanics that's been in play for a long time for games where gimmick points (drama point, fate point, hero points etc) have bern in play. Those games shifted the &quot;bad stuff happens&quot; from &quot;normal&quot; or &quot;pre-paid flaws&quot; to &quot;gm gives extra&nbsp; hero point when you get screwed with.&quot; Threst chips adds another layer of stockpiling.My group's biases aside, an aspect that I like from STA (not though to outweigh the rest of its momentum problems imo) is that if I recall correctly &quot;resting&quot; costs you dome of your momentum pool - making it &quot;better&quot; to press on if you can as far as that very importsntvredource is concerned - agsin just seems a mechanical representation of yee olde &quot;but if we rest the other guys get to regroup and may counterattack&quot; playstyle. I might have to think about whether this mechanical representation of what were basic gming roleplay is intended to be (and does it succeed at) removing that &quot;good gm&quot; skill play and replacing it with more &quot;follow the mechanics&quot; oriented play - with &quot;how soon does thre mountain blow&quot; and &quot;do the goblins regroup and attack while we rest &quot; decided not by gm but by how many threat chips the mechanics gave them?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7769207, member: 6919838"] "D&D doesn't really have anything like that so if you want to run a game with the episodic and dramatic feel, you'd have to either (a) have a [I]really[/I] good DM capable of making that happen or (b) run the risk of things feeling very railroaded. " See, to me, I think it's a telling thing that apparently the same thing done "by gm spending chips" rather than by "gm runs the npcs and the world" can be taken as just expected in one case and railroading in the other. Back in "yee olde days" when the ground rumbled in the background as we delved deeper it wasnt "railroading" it was "ok, lets not stay longer than we have to cuz this baby dont seem like it's as dormant as they said." No chips. No gripes about offenses to our agency. Just part of the challenge and fun. Then at some point, agency, sandboxing, railroading became something some folks got worried about so now we get full circle back to the GM decides the mountain is dangerous long as he has chips and that makes it new school and not railroady? I am not trying to be dismissive of that transition or the concerns but I find it amusing that the *not really new* threat chips (see velow) basically just serve as a beard to give GMs the same choices they had from day one - with the exact same risks of in the hands of a not "really good" gm. To me, the downside of this is the embedding of the chip economy so strongly into challenge resolution that it really puts the chips as the top focus - both in success and consequence but as the top reward that matter - I spotlight STA as an example. Sèms more like the celebration after a conflict is not over "we saved the hostages" but "we got 5 momentum." I think a word balloon graph of the whole run of Shield of Tomorrow STA likely has "momentum" as the most used word in the entire series. Sidebar... "Not really new" - To me it seems like the threat chips in play dont turn out to be that different than a system mechanics that's been in play for a long time for games where gimmick points (drama point, fate point, hero points etc) have bern in play. Those games shifted the "bad stuff happens" from "normal" or "pre-paid flaws" to "gm gives extra hero point when you get screwed with." Threst chips adds another layer of stockpiling. My group's biases aside, an aspect that I like from STA (not though to outweigh the rest of its momentum problems imo) is that if I recall correctly "resting" costs you dome of your momentum pool - making it "better" to press on if you can as far as that very importsntvredource is concerned - agsin just seems a mechanical representation of yee olde "but if we rest the other guys get to regroup and may counterattack" playstyle. I might have to think about whether this mechanical representation of what were basic gming roleplay is intended to be (and does it succeed at) removing that "good gm" skill play and replacing it with more "follow the mechanics" oriented play - with "how soon does thre mountain blow" and "do the goblins regroup and attack while we rest " decided not by gm but by how many threat chips the mechanics gave them? [/QUOTE]

Verification