News:

Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.

Main Menu

Stumbling Around A Rebuttal

Started by Lxndr, August 25, 2003, 02:22:33 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Callan S.

Quote from: Jack Spencer Jr*snip*
However, I disagree in another sense. I think that you will find more often a dice game with be played diceless more often than a diceless game played diced. Why? Because the so-called diceless method is a more basic form of roleplaying. It is easier to regress to this than to develop dice methods, especially on the fly. Such is my view.

No, I agree with you there, I just didn't emphasize it (for fear of spoiling my point). I did say you can ague dice systems suggest adding diceless resolution. They very heavily[/b] suggest adding that.

But a foregone conclusion, even in practical terms? Nah.
Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>

Cemendur

Quote from: Erick WujcikWould the following be a correct re-statement? "All fortune-based role-playing games are really a fusion of fortune and non-fortune."

IMHO, yes. However, I believe you want a more specific statement. Their are two types of non-fortune mechanics currently recognized, Drama and Karma.

I would restate that, "All fortune-based role-playing games contain fortune mechanics and drama methods."

Are their fortune-based RPGs without Karma? I don't know, probably.  However, you can't have a fortune-based RPG without Drama. Drama is the essential characteristic of all RPGS. Really its one of two defining features. All RPGs have Drama (role-playing methods) and either Karma or Fortune mechanics (game mechanics), or all three forms of resolution.

Role-Playing Games are any form of Drama that incorporates game mechanics. The two types of game mechanics are Fortune and Karma.

Thats how I currently understand it.
"We have to break free of roles by restoring them to the realm of play." Raoul Vaneigem, 'The Revolution of Everyday Life'

Callan S.

Quote from: M. J. Young*snip*
Unless the rules themselves state that nothing can be done that is not covered by the rules, you can't escape drama as a resolution mechanic even by agreeing that nothing can be done that is not covered by the rules (agreement of the players is a drama mechanic).

Whenever someone says, "This is what we'll do", that's drama. Can't get out of it.

--M. J. Young

Just another thought on this.

Take this analogy: A: Say I'm a boss and a descision about how many widgets needs to be made. I decide to make it myself.
B: Same situation again, but this time I don't decide to make the descision myself. I do decide to delegate power to a subordinate and he's the one who makes the descision. Through hierarchy I'm responsible for him, but I'm not actually making the choice myself.

Now, in a RPG, if the GM just decides the outcome, its dramatic resolution. What happens if he deligates power to a dice mechanic.

Yes, he has responsiblity through hierachy there. But he's making the actual choice about as much as the boss who hires a subordinate to do the work.

I think the delegation of power is the point where drama leaves the equation. The choosing to actually delegate power could be argued as dramatic, but I think its only linked by responsibility, and its different like A and B are.

Just some extra thoughts.
Philosopher Gamer
<meaning></meaning>