Started by Callan S., May 03, 2010, 07:29:32 PM
Quote from: Filip Luszczyk on May 05, 2010, 11:06:24 AMChristian,This might be a bit off topic, or it might not, I'm not sure.
QuoteHowever, in your ruleset, is it fine for me to say: USS Enterprise appears and evaporates the goblin with photon torpedos (I use my "Raised in a tavern" trait and spend 1 Resolution point)?
QuoteOr, is it fine for you to say "He calls his friends" every time you spend threat tokens for the goblin, over and over again?
QuoteWith both, is it fine when the person saying that is genuinely convinced they are telling good story? With both, is it fine if they are just saying it, for reasons? What happens when other players don't think it fits the story?
QuoteUSS Enterprise aside, what if I object to your goblin's dagger glowing red?
QuoteHow does your ruleset process that? Does it at all?
Quotewe, being human, expect consistency and some reliance on the rules of the real world, we expect that if the person(s) with credibility has established that there is a table in the scene, it provides height advantage, and height advantage adds 2 to your attack roll, that when I stand on that table, it ought to provide me that +2!
QuoteHuman-hardware does process words, though. You feed human-hardware with data and height advantage is either 0 or 1. When the computer would measure the amount of pixels or whatever, human-hardware can measure some other quality and proceed accordingly.
QuoteThis might be a bit off topic, or it might not, I'm not sure. However, in your ruleset, is it fine for me to say: USS Enterprise appears and evaporates the goblin with photon torpedos (I use my "Raised in a tavern" trait and spend 1 Resolution point)?
Quotefrom what you say in your post, have expectations getting first priority. Would you disagree - you just mentioned how important expectations are to you?
Quote from: Callan S. on May 05, 2010, 10:11:58 PMGareth, you seem to be telling me things as if your not considering you could be wrong on the matter. You need to add stuff like 'And this would be wrong if X'. Even Richard Dawkins said if a rabit skeleton is found in the wrong fossil record, it'd disprove the thing he passionately believes is true (evolution theory). Please don't post again unless you can mull over being wrong somehow.
QuoteNot at all. You've pretty much hit the nail on the head with respect to where I stand. The rules of any tabletop RPG, as written, are what they are, but it's everyone's understanding of the SIS and how your group plays that counts. Same reason, I believe, so many RPG rulebooks go to great lengths to encourage you play by the rules you think make sense or are the most fun, even if they skirt or even openly contradict what the rulebook suggests. Why use a rule if it doesn't make sense to you and your group? And I believe that generally the house rules that stick are the ones that:a) are just more fun, or more oftenb) better fit the group's expectations of how the game (per the manual) is played and how to best reflect the SIS and spirit of the campaign/session being run.So yes, to word it succinctly, I do believe the "real" component of an RPG depends on the hybrid of the game, house rules, and group. It's their knowledge and expectations that build the SIS, and become the reference point, even more so than the rulebook, even though what the group "expects" is often made up in large part of the written rules.
QuoteIn other cases, perhaps there should exist some kind of veto rule, I don't know... "When all other players roll their eyes, the narrator just shut up and grab the nachos". He he, what do you say ?
Quote from: Callan S.Take one hundred people and put them in seperate rooms. They have a piece of graph paper and two little cardboard figures. They are told to put one above the other at the very minimum needed for height advantage.
QuoteDo you have any AP accounts of people doing that?
QuoteWould you do it? You wouldn't find it more fun to shape your words around 'Raised in a tavern'? And so be inclined to say something closer to 'Raised in a tavern' not because you have to, but because it's more fun to?
QuoteI can't quite describe why, but I've got a bad feeling on your list of 'you can't because'.
Quote from: FilipQuote from: MeTake one hundred people and put them in seperate rooms. They have a piece of graph paper and two little cardboard figures. They are told to put one above the other at the very minimum needed for height advantage.Take one hundred computers created by different producers, varying in technical capabilities and loaded with different operating systems. Run the same program. Do you get exactly the same performance?
Quote from: MeTake one hundred people and put them in seperate rooms. They have a piece of graph paper and two little cardboard figures. They are told to put one above the other at the very minimum needed for height advantage.
QuoteThe more I think about it, the more I'm starting to believe this "height advantage" should actually be referred to in the same terms as the physical ball in your roulette wheel's slot, as in concrete representations of game data.
QuoteI recall having a design not unlike Christian's, where it didn't matter what weapon your character was using, it only mattered what attack value and resource points you had on your sheet. It didn't even matter if your character was using any weapon at all or some wild kung-fu, since you could describe your attacks according to your aesthetic preferences, all being mechanically equal. This addressed some of my issues with Exalted at that time, which punished the player mechanically for most weapon choices other than the grand daiklave (boring). When I pitched this game to some gamers I used to hang out with (not my regular gaming group at the time), here's what they told me: "You're kidding? Everybody will go overboard with weapons!"
QuoteAnyway, all in all, I find it interesting what happens when the rules allow you to say anything you want and you actually say something you weren't allowed to, as it turns out.