[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: (TFT) Price of new Magic Item - Paramount Armor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe Hartley"
Subject: Re: (TFT) Price of new Magic Item - Paramount Armor
On Jan 28, 2011, at 2:43 AM, Jay Carlisle wrote:
>> Again...
>> Does anybody actually know what 1 point of damage is supposed to
>> mean?
The conversation about abstraction vs. realism in TFT is one that's gone
on for years. I'm an abstractionist, so to me one point of damage means
around 1/12th of a starting character's total ability to withstand injury.
I love Jay and his maniacal research into all the aspects of the game that
he brings, but it's an approach that isn't my cup of tea.
So, what's one damage point? Anything we want it to be!
Say it ain't so Joe!
LOL
I do want the things I design to work for as broad an audience as possible.
From my point of view "fantasy" by necessity depends on "reality" strongly.
A fantasy-world uses the real-world as a basis and tweaks aspects of it.
As far as I know Legolas' arrows follow the same balistic path on Middle
Earth that they would on Earth for example.
I also suppose that this is the case for Cidri.
By its nature abstraction is the reduction of information from the more
specific to the more general.
Abstraction implies specificity.
On the other hand is the "frame" stuff I talk about.
Straight Melee was possable to frame in such a way that two players could
simulate gladatorial combat.
The naration of a combat at the front however hinted that this wasn't the
only use for the game.
For a number of reasons Melee makes a basic assumption for gameplay.
Both parties involved in the combat want to close and fight.
In this situation one dosen't have to pay much attention to what's beyond
the edge of the map.
It's almost like asking what's on the edges of a ball pitch.
Abstractly there's nothing beyond the map.
I don't think the majority of players view this abstractly though.
Abstractly this is an imaginative blind spot so to speak; realisticly I feel
that players fill in the blind spot with their own ideas if the GM doesn't
do it.
I find most players "see" the map as being in an arena more or less like the
Colosseum or maybe Solider Field if left to their own devices.
I've grown to think of the basic Melee arena as a pit in the ground, much
like Conan come to think about it.
Without somekind of visualization of the arena the edge of the map is a hazy
place.
I feel that its the players choice to specify... as a GM I feel should offer
simple, abstract choices for player Action and the players should be able to
become more specific about the Actions that interest them.
This is a major reason why I try to tie many game terms into real-world
references.
I feel that the quicker I can get things to objective terms the fairer I'm
trying to be.
If I'm gonna allow that others exist at all then I've gotta allow that
players are not me.
I don't feel that a RPG "adventure" has much to do with the traditional plot
to a story.
I'm trying to construct locations that are modeled in such a way that the
players choice of inter-Actions with the location results in an adventerious
story in the sum total.
If I don't wanna have to deal with anything beyond the "edge of the map"
then I need to "frame" the Actions in such a way that specifics beyond the
edge aren't pertinent to the duration of the thing.
...
"I start digging" is flirting with the edge of the map.
=====
Post to the entire list by writing to tft@brainiac.com.
Unsubscribe by mailing to majordomo@brainiac.com with the message body
"unsubscribe tft"