Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
If your goal is a story, you want drama. Randomness can sometimes provide inspiration when you're stuck, but a story isn't just a chain of events -- it has a plot. And randomness is a great way to generate a chain of events, but it will not generate a plot.
|
Again, sometimes it's hard to get where you're coming from, Anthony. I completely agree with this. However, it seems that you think a plot must be fully detailed, but it doesn't have to be. It's not as hard as many people think to connect strange, seemingly random, events into a coherent narrative--that's how conspiracy theories work after all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
It needs stats if the expectation is that it can be overcome/exploited/whatever via the tools the game gives you to overcome challenges. This doesn't have to be the case and sometimes leads to lame events (example: D&D campaign I'm in, someone was infected by a curse of lycanthropy. It started on being a bit of a side story -- and then a cleric cast remove curse, and poof, gone). On the other hand, it's somewhat unfair if you give people tools, and then don't let them use those tools.
|
Again, yes. But, your example is fairly . . . pointless. Sure, in
D&D 5E it's a 3rd level cleric spell to remove lycanthropy. And if that's a plot point then the GM used it poorly. But, the issue with drama is that it shouldn't be something that your character sheet can protect you from (spells are listed on the character sheet).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anthony
I don't stat everything out, but that's more about laziness; I'll come up with numbers if it actually matters.
|
Yeah, sometimes it's hard to see where you're coming from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs
That looks like a motte and bailey fallacy. Yes, it's true that if the PCs are going up against an adversary, and neither victory nor defeat is certain, then there has to be some specification of how probable they are to succeed; and in functional terms that might be called "stats." But it's not necessarily the case that that specification is written down in advance; it might be just made up by the GM on the spot when it becomes necessary—that is, the character definition/writeup might not include the list of traits and numbers that is normally called "stats" in GURPS. And even if it is, it might not take the form of a stat block. I mean, for example, I could perfectly well say, "You want to fight Chingis the Barbarian? Okay, make an attack roll with a BAD of -5." That -5 wouldn't be a "stat" in the usual sense (and I might not even be rolling dice for Chingis), but it would certainly be a number defining the foe's capabilities, and I might even have written it down in advance. So would it be a "stat"? In a broad sense, possibly, but in a narrow sense, no.
And this isn't even limited to the capabilities of gods or superpowered adversaries. It could apply just as well to the random orcs or tavern brawlers the PCs run into by chance, who were never written up because the encounter wasn't planned.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by evileeyore
It's like you are reading my mind.
|
Yeah, whenever Bill and I are on the same page, it's like he's in my mind elucidating my thoughts in ways I just couldn't. When I grow up, I want to be like him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by whswhs
Well, perhaps. But I think a lot of people are assuming that "has stats" means "has a complete set of standard character-type stats worked out before the character/entity is introduced into play for the first time." And if you're not addressing that (and perhaps you agree that it's not necessarily), then your response may be addressing the verbal form of their statements but not the actual intent.
|
Again, pretty much on the nose.