FireBoard
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
FireBoard Forum Modern technologies
technological requirements HERO/Diced vs. Low Mechanics/Diceless (1 viewing) (1) Guests
Go to bottom Post Reply Favoured: 0
TOPIC: technological requirements HERO/Diced vs. Low Mechanics/Diceless
#10201
David P. Summers (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
technological requirements HERO/Diced vs. Low Mechanics/Diceless  
And would that really matter? Magic systems are all _base_less (appologies to those wiccans and neo-pagans reading this), yet we have fun with their bogosity. They are _base_d on a concept of how magic works and consitently applied to the concept (if they are any good).
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#10202
David P. Summers (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
technological requirements HERO/Diced vs. Low Mechanics/Diceless  
: Not quite.  It, at least for me, harms SOD if I know that : the source of the detail is just making it up. Then almost all rule systems would blow my SOD. I'm not sure what you are trying to say here except to try and make a general unsupported slam against rule systems (other than Theatrix . Can you even support the claim that almost all rule systems just make up details without regard to reality? And even if you could, then why not just use a good game system rather than abondon all hope of details that actually add to the sense that you character is really there?
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#10203
JENKINS ROBERT (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
technological requirements HERO/Diced vs. Low Mechanics/Diceless  
In my campaign we never rolled for social interactions when I was using formal mechanics, and eventually we dropped any formal mechanics whatsoever. I think a situation like the one you've just described would lead me to throw away either the dice or the roleplayed interaction, since they obviously don't match. My preference would be to throw away the dice, for social interactions. (I *love* this particular debate <sharpens claws) Okay.  So you've just limited characters to perzackly what the *p_layer_* can do.  Why not LARP?         Do you really think that what Shazemar described above must lead to a character-with-only-p_layer_'s-abilities _style_ of play? To me, the obvious way of coping with Shazemar's sort of _style_ would be for the p_layer_s to mirror the other people that their characters meet during play. For example, if Jack has been described as an intimidating thug, then keep that in mind when interacting with him. How would your character deal with this potentially brutal person? (Note: I don't mean to suggest that now everyone must act as if Jack was Hell on two legs, but to play up to an important character detail).         There are obvious drawbacks with this - if Jack's p_layer_ is hopelessly inoffensive then this could well be a strain on SOD. My own experience with this, however. has been that this sort of technique can help a p_layer_ to feel that they really are being who their character is meant to be, which in turn leads to a better portrayal, which leads to the other p_layer_s accepting the character more readily, etc. A kind of synergism, if you will.         It can be quite effective sometimes, although of course not everyone's cup of tea. It does sound like the sort of thing which could hamper someone'e attempt to remain IC, but it hasn't been much of a problem when I've remembered to mirror. It's also a lot easier if you know either a) the type of character or b) the p_layer_ quite well. I tend to end up thinking Ah, that's the sort of thing you're getting at .         Of course, the whole point is dependant on whether one calls mirroring a formal mechanic. I'll have to start paying more attention to the what is a mechanic? discussion now. Rob
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#10204
russell wallace (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
technological requirements HERO/Diced vs. Low Mechanics/Diceless  
Too realistic. Not realistic enough. It doesn't matter. All I know is that the game is more alive and lively for me when the detail is there, and the p_layer_'s seem to enjoy it when results are _base_d on their actual de_script_ions. So that's what I do. And I, and most of the p_layer_s I know, enjoy it more when the results are not so _base_d when the p_layer_ has no basis of knowledge about the task involved with which to construct such a de_script_ion.  So that's what I do.
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#10205
Mary K. Kuhner (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
technological requirements HERO/Diced vs. Low Mechanics/Diceless  
: : What action could possibly short-circuit the plot? : : Almost any action in the wrong place at the wrong time. : Can't think of one that would happen at the wrong place at the wrong time. I go home, leaving the entire matter behind me. Hm, I think David is of the problem follows you home persuasion. How about I ignore the opportunity to surrender, as it is obviously a trap?  Seems to me, David, that that one broke your Star Trek scenario completely
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
#10206
Frank Pitt (Visitor)
Click here to see the profile of this user
Birthdate:
technological requirements HERO/Diced vs. Low Mechanics/Diceless  
(Well, actually, you could set up non-natural wormhole configurations of  the type discussed by Morris, Thorne, or Visser, but any character in a  RPG discovering  them would _have_ to assume they were evidence of an  _extremely_ advanced  alien race, or God, depending on their persuasion ) There are other possibilities. But if you had such a story as you suggest above, and assuming that all other aspects of the story were Hard SF, would this be a Hard SF story? I'd think so. It could be.
... read more »
 
Report to moderator   Logged Logged  
  The administrator has disabled public write access.
Go to top Post Reply
Powered by FireBoardget the latest posts directly to your desktop
 
 

Who's Online

We have 37 guests online
Google Earth 5.0 Google announced today the introduction of Google Ocean to its Google Earth geographical applications 5 Virtual diving, exploring three-dimensional underwater terrain, and view the material on the deep sea, prepared by ocean scietists - these are just some of the possibilities offered by Google Ocean. Oceans cover over 70% of the Earth's surface, and the hidden depths of 80% of life on our planet. The man managed to motorization 4 You As Sulaymaniyah photo projekty domów not only meet 5% of that space. By combining unique images from the comments of experts, ocean in Google Earth allows users to easily reach the most difficult places available on the planet. Virtual explorers can swim around underwater volcanoes, watch film footage of underwater life exotic, read the information about the nearby wrecks of ships, as well as upload pictures and videos of their favorite places to dive or surf.

YouTube's serious problems approaching ? It seems that soon will disappear quite a large number of very Katowice airport transfers Krakow travel top.auto-hobby.co.uk popular music videos by artists such as Madonna, Red Hot Chili Peppers, and Led Zeppelin. This will be the result of the absence of a compromise between Google and the record company Warner Music Group, which demanded a greater share of the profits. Recently, one of the largest record companies - Warner Music Group has expressed its displeasure by too small a share Columbus photo automobiles.elegant-auto.co.uk used cars in profits generated by Youtube using such materials that label. The problem, however, is that Google is trying to how is that YouTube finally started to earn his.

Wooden Nokia Nokia's Eco-Team, a group of workers developing a more environmentally friendly phone concept, designed the wooden kamerofon with 8 megapixel camera. Embedded in a wooden casing for Nokia looks quite rustic, and although difficult to actually call it organic, could be an interesting alternative to traditional telephones. Phone is made of wood from forests with sustainable management, previews.famous-car.co.uk get-carfinance.co.uk drive-awaycarfinance.co.uk which is obtained mainly from the spirit of eco (although it would be more environmentally friendly device made of bamboo for example). Since this is only a concept we do not have too much information about the functionalities, in addition to 8 megapixel camera, Bluetooth, and that the phone has to work on Symbian S60 vehicles.motors-blog.co.uk Carbon Kiteboards reviews.online-auto.co.uk . The phone sees the light of day, of course, is not known yet.