Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6102564" data-attributes="member: 42582">In post 101 I mentioned BW as a system with a formal player-flag-flying mechanic (Beliefs, etc). I mentioned that you can do similar things informally.I still don't see what that has to do with a sample module with pregen PCs - obviously in such a game the players don't fly any flags. The whole point is that the designer has flown the flags instead, and the players go along with that.But I don't see why you think that proves that player flag flying is impossible, or must produce play that breaks down. (If that's what you do think. I'm still not following this diversion through The Sword.)If your point is that sometimes sessions aren't very good, and that no system can insulate against this, obviously that's true. But that's not a reason to try to run good sessions, and to look for techniques that will help with that. Is it?Maybe. Maybe not. We don't have enough information.Not all RPG players are interested in simply "overcoming challenges" as the goal of play.Not on my part. Adversarial GMing can be an issue, sure, but Hussar hasn't put forward any examples of it that I've noticed. The issue I'm interested in is GM control over plot, and the way that GM control over scene framing is relating to that.I'm sure that' true. But not every RPGer finds his/her sense of verisimilitude bound up in setting exploration in this way.Of course. But in a system in which the GM is not going to mechanically resolve the desert crossing, presumably s/he would not let you waste 10-15 minutes equipping for it.Because it's part of the setting and backstory? Because it provides colour?And there's no reason to think the crossing was easy for the PCs. It's just easy at the table, for the players.Of course. I didn't realise that was in dispute.Sure - that's completely viable. That's how most groups I've played with do shopping.Part of what matters in RPGing, in my view, is deciding what matters, and honing in on that with the action resolution mechanics. Sometimes it might be shopping, sometimes it might be travel, sometimes it might be fighting.Sure, that could be done too at the level of system design.  That wouldn't be a MacGuffin, then, would it? It's no longer a plot device, but a significant story element in itself.I took that to be an implication of your remark upthread that a good player would RP his/her PC rather than pursue the mechanically advantageous option.I think you're replying to my comment to N'raac - though as it happens I also think our approaches are pretty different. Like Hussar, for instance, I'm not that much into setting, and on the "What should be in a new setting" thread I didn't find much I would want in your list of desiderata.OK. Though I'm not sure I see the relevance of no combat. I personally quite like combat as a site of roleplaying and character thematic development - for me, at least, it's a fairly big part of the fantasy genre.There are different ways of using terminology, but I not only believe Hussar but tend to share his preference. I don't think Hussar is objecting to colour ("The city lies on the other side of a 200-mile desert? Cool stuff.") But it's very feasible to keep this stuff basicaly to the level of colour and nothing more.I personally prefer to focus on characters, and on situation - what's the conflict? what're the stakes? - than on setting as such.Nice actual play example. (Can't XP yet.)And your first para is good too. I don't understand this idea that because you want to skip the boring stuff, you'd want to skip the good stuff too!</blockquote>

Verification