Do words control your will?

Imagine this - there is a button in real life, within arms reach of you - pressing it will set off a little program called 'combat'. It'll use some stats called bonus to hit, armour and hitpoints, creating their values from a small random range.

Okay, I've said these words 'Your standing in a big open field that's really really empty with just some grass around and the sun above'

Then I say your in charge, the GM or whatever, and you take it from here.

Assuming you accept that position, would you find some mysterious, magical force stopping you from pressing the button that runs the program called 'combat'?

Cause I'd think not. But if I'm wrong, I'm absolutely fascinated - because I can and I want to learn more about this phisiological difference!

But most of you would probably go 'Wha? Of course I can reach out with my hand and hit the button, don't be absurd!'

I assure you, I'm not so creative as to be this absurd!

Board game design: Throw it to the players to decide, with no 'we can't decide' option

Awww, no WTF responce from me, just agreement for this thread!

Filip points out the procedural flaw really well - if you throw something to a group to decide, one very valid and all too possible outcome is that they don't come to an agreement. So have a default!...except the bulk of RPG's don't have that!

For some people, I suspect they like being forced to agree with no default to get out of it. Indeed I think Frank will, in that thread, prove to be one of those people.

Here's an interesting perceptual issue in terms of table top RPG's.

If you try and do diplomacy with someone in table top play, and the GM says you can't do a roll, is that him altering the mechanics of the game? Or do the mechanics say he gets to determine if a roll is involved?

Frankly from RPG texts I've always read the latter. But D7 says it's the former.

Table top roleplay - the quick encounter

If you've ever done table top roleplay, you know what is just a small skirmish can take up a long time at the gaming table.

But what if you had something like this - there's the option of just rolling to hit, and comparing that to a chart it shows how many shots you use and how much damage the bad guys do, before they are defeated or forced into retreat.

Okay, the important thing is that this is actually an opt in system - the way it's presented is that before combat begins, the GM might want to do it this way, but all the players have to want to do it as well, otherwise it goes to the traditional combat system.

That way if it takes a long time, it's because the players wanted it to take a long time!

Further info ~~~
The model for this version is that all players have to want to do the quick version. If even one player wants to go traditional, you do. This doesn't mean other players slope off to play Xbox - they play out the combat, because if one person votes to do it traditional, then that's what everyone does. The one person who votes that way aught to consider why they would take that option, given the strong effect it has. Or if they just take it for selfish reasons - well, I consider gaming to be like playing in a band...and bands don't hold together very long with people who only think of themselves.

Forum ‘right givers’

As a supplement to my thread here.


Looking at the D&D forums, they also have a little forum culture where they start granting themselves rights. Like 'Oh, the GM can't cheat' and such. And they have a thread where they all agree with each other that that is the case. And 'thus' it's the case for their group. Except it's only the people on the forum who have agreed with that, not their own group.