Started by David Berg, November 09, 2011, 01:31:36 AM
Quote from: contracycle on December 09, 2011, 02:55:19 PMWhat I wish to flag up is that recent discussion has shifted into a framework that essentially sets the system that governs character actions and concerns at right angles to the concerns that govern plot, to stop them coming into conflict. What I'm getting at is that I think for some purposes at least, they do need to coincide. Frex, I may be that I need and want the players to worry about things like whether high ground gives them an advantage, because the plot is going to put them in a position where the high ground makes a plot point work. If the system is directing them away from that as a concern, and towards things like how stylishly they perform or how things impact their psychological state, then the significance of the high ground factor won't carry over, and the (my) goal of a sort of experiential simulation will be defeated.
Quote from: contracycle on December 13, 2011, 01:40:47 PMIdeally I'd like to make things as explicit as possible, as with the flowchart things I proposed.
QuoteSometimes it is about problem-solving: "Now that I'm using a rapier, does high ground matter? Ah, the book says it does, so now that's part of my tools and constraints for beating this challenge!" When I'm in the mood to do that, I don't think I'd wanna play SBP. Would you?
QuoteIs saying, "And then, because you held formation, you defeat them!" any harder or less effective than waiting for the dice to say that same thing?
QuoteFinally, if, as GM, I had a plan for not just which factors would arise and when, but also how they would be experienced, then I'm the whole show, and the mechanics aren't helping me one bit.
QuoteI should probably clarify here that my position in this thread is not that SBP shouldn't use mechanics to resolve success/failure. It's simply that it doesn't have to, and that it would be good to have some grasp of the alternatives.
Quote from: contracycle on November 10, 2011, 06:24:14 AMMy own experience, though, is that the resolution system - of the existing types anyway - steadily lose significance, to the npoint that I start to discard them. I mean sure, it's moderately useful to know if this PC and pick this lock or whatever, but really it's either information I want them to know - cf. wandering clue type things - or it isn't, in which case I'm not going to let them anyway.I've more or less come to the conclusion that this sort of resolution just doesn't matter very much. Almost everything that is really significant is happening outside the action resolution system, and occurring in the GM's control of scene setting, pacing, information access and so on. That's what the real system is - GM fiat. By default, because it's not formally regulated by any specific techniques. Therefore I think it is correct to approach this from the angle of trying to systemetise what the GM is doing, and setting conventional resolution aside - or at least, not being trapped within it. System is bigger than resolution, and it is that larger system we need to construct.
Quote from: Frank Tarcikowski on November 11, 2011, 04:52:34 AMAbout systematizing GM fiat, here's some food for thought: A rule saying, "GM, you cannot do this right now" would probably make it a different game entirely. A rule saying "GM, you can do anything but then...", on the other hand, now that's an idea with potential.