Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7769265" data-attributes="member: 16814">You managed to fisk my post without successfully debating the central point (it was about pacing).&nbsp; I'll not engage the gish gallop here since it doesn't engage that point but just throws up a lot of chaff at the details.&nbsp; As an example of this, you spend a bit of time arguing that the overall goal may still be threatened by the DM asking for more atomic (definition below)&nbsp; action checks while ignoring how that reinforces my point about pacing (and how pacing isn't failure/success).&nbsp; Not to mention that in OS gaming, the actual overall goal is not often discussed; players declare atomic actions in series that are resolved one by one instead of larger goal/approach declarations because that's how OS mechanics are organized: at the atomic action level.&nbsp; Because of this, an action declaration can be adjudicated to cause the goal to become unobtainable without ever being declared, leading to blocking rather than moving the fiction.&nbsp; The game grinds because the players now have to figure out a new chain of actions, resolved atomically, and the fiction pauses while they do so.&nbsp; Contrasted with NS play tgat aims to resolve the goal rather than the atomic actions, for good or bad, thus continuing to keep the fiction moving and the gas oedal of pacing on the floor.&nbsp; Because pacing is about time, not success/failure -- a failure can still keep the pressure and pace up.This isn't to say the OS gaming is worse or NS is better.&nbsp; NS gets this pacing bump at a cost:&nbsp; it often applies meta mechanics to give more control to players over success/fail because the pacing engine is revved higher.&nbsp; It also loses the process sim feel, which can be something enjoyable.&nbsp; There are tradeoffs in systems to achieve play goals.&nbsp; To me, this is the biggest missing part of these discussions:&nbsp; not what belongs to which style or which style does this thing better, but what do players want out of play and how does a given game/style give it?*Here atomic actions means action declarations are presented as small chunks of discreete interaction and resolved independently. Frex, to climb a wall, you'll make multiple climb checks based on distance climbed. If you wanted to climb the example wall but quietly to boot, you'd have a seperate check for stealth because that's &quot;atomically&quot; different from climbing.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7769265, member: 16814"] You managed to fisk my post without successfully debating the central point (it was about pacing). I'll not engage the gish gallop here since it doesn't engage that point but just throws up a lot of chaff at the details. As an example of this, you spend a bit of time arguing that the overall goal may still be threatened by the DM asking for more atomic (definition below) action checks while ignoring how that reinforces my point about pacing (and how pacing isn't failure/success). Not to mention that in OS gaming, the actual overall goal is not often discussed; players declare atomic actions in series that are resolved one by one instead of larger goal/approach declarations because that's how OS mechanics are organized: at the atomic action level. Because of this, an action declaration can be adjudicated to cause the goal to become unobtainable without ever being declared, leading to blocking rather than moving the fiction. The game grinds because the players now have to figure out a new chain of actions, resolved atomically, and the fiction pauses while they do so. Contrasted with NS play tgat aims to resolve the goal rather than the atomic actions, for good or bad, thus continuing to keep the fiction moving and the gas oedal of pacing on the floor. Because pacing is about time, not success/failure -- a failure can still keep the pressure and pace up. This isn't to say the OS gaming is worse or NS is better. NS gets this pacing bump at a cost: it often applies meta mechanics to give more control to players over success/fail because the pacing engine is revved higher. It also loses the process sim feel, which can be something enjoyable. There are tradeoffs in systems to achieve play goals. To me, this is the biggest missing part of these discussions: not what belongs to which style or which style does this thing better, but what do players want out of play and how does a given game/style give it? *Here atomic actions means action declarations are presented as small chunks of discreete interaction and resolved independently. Frex, to climb a wall, you'll make multiple climb checks based on distance climbed. If you wanted to climb the example wall but quietly to boot, you'd have a seperate check for stealth because that's "atomically" different from climbing. [/QUOTE]

Verification