How stupid would someone have to be to enter lobbying negotiations with the PM of Australia without finding out his political affiliations?
<snip>
If my PC goes to visit the King and has no opportunity to make any determination of the King’s values, goals or political affiliations beforehand, I think that shows my character to be pretty foolish, and a very poor diplomat. For me, that does not make the game better.
Conan does this all the time. And isn't REH an instance of the genre we're aiming for?
But if the Kingdom is filled with slaves, brutally treated by their masters, I fail to see how the PC’s will expect they are walking into the court of a just and righteous King.
I don't really follow this, for two reasons. First, perhaps the PCs are going to meet George Washington or Abraham Lincoln, both national rulers widely regarded as just and righteous who nevertheless presided over a polity that was filled with slaves brutally treated by their masters. Second, what reason do we have to think that this is the kingdom that was in play in [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION]'s scenario?
My view is that the “discover it in play” approach means the PC’s can never determine the lay of the land beforehand to plan a strategy that will best meet their needs.
<snip>
If the players Gathered Information in town to establish the King was a just and noble ruler and his Chancellor a loyal servant, could this then be overridden in play (the populace are unaware of the true state of affairs) or does success in Gathering Info mean that the King is now locked as just and noble, and there can be no future surprises?
You keep reiterating the point about planning as if it is a dramatic revelation! Whereas I have already noted, multiple times, that part of the point of "indie" style is to push decision making out of the planning + prep part of play, and into the action resolution part of play.
If that action resolution includes gathering rumours, then that is part of play. Whether the rumours were true or not would depend upon both the mechanics used and the stakes set.
Why would I walk in with no idea whatsoever of how the King is perceived?
Perhaps the PC does know - but the player doesn't know everything the PC knows. Now why would the player not know? Perhaps because
transition scenes take time to play out at the table, and the group prefers to play out action scenes.
Can we later learn that the “baby” was a Shapeshifted creature and not a real baby, or is “real baby” now sufficiently established that we cannot override it? Can my character make a skill roll to impose that the entire scene was merely a dream sequence resulting from excessive alcohol, spicy food and nerves about meeting the King tomorrow?
The former - perhaps. You would have to ask Manbearcat how he handles player-introduced content. The latter - I wouldn't have thought so in the typical game, as it is retrospectively reframing the stakes.
It had two purposes, not just one.
<snip>
It seems to me like the rogue has added the intent of preventing retribution.
<snip>
The rogue succeeded. If “success is success – full stop”, his intent should be realized.
<snip>
If the Drake retaliates on the kingdom, based on my intent stated above, there is a violation of my success. I didn’t roll to Bluff the Chamberlain – I rolled to Bluff the Drake.
<snip>
To me, the Drake realizing he has been duped and retaliating is a clear sign of an off-screen living, breathing world. However, his retaliation means that my Bluff failed in its stated intent to prevent retaliation – I don’t see that as “success is success – full stop”.
You do realise that you are in the odd position of trying to tell Manbearcat that - from reading a post that
he wrote to convey
his recollections of a scenario that he ran - that you have a better grasp of the stakes that had been set than he does. That doesn't make much sense to me.
You are correct that the roll was to Bluff the drake, but the clear intention was to
persuade the Chamberlain of something.
I would consider two characters with identical statistics and identical options available, which they can change at their discretion at any time (ie which spells they will prepare, rather than which spells they are even capable of casting) to be mechanically identical.
I don't see why - two PCs carrying both a sword and a dagger, but one of whom attacks only with the dagger and the other who attacks only with the sword, are not identically mechanical at the moment which counts (namely, action resolution).
But anyway, your conception of mechanical identity isn't all that relative to
my preference that the personality of a character find mechanical expression.
Your whole discussion of “PC versus player” leaves me scratching my head. The PC’s have in-game goals within the setting. How do they best achieve them? Players have the goal of an exciting and fun game, in my experience. They want to play their characters. The PC may have goals which, if achieved, would frustrate the player.
It seems to me here that you are agreeing that player and PC goals can come apart.
If “asking politely” provides a +1 bonus to interrogation, and “torch to the groin” provides a +3 bonus, then “torch to the groin” is the best tactic.
<snip>
We are discussing tactics, not goals. Whatever their goals, they require getting past these opponents.
As I indicated, I prefer an approach in which the best thing for the paladin to do is
not "torch to the groin". There are a range of more or less formal ways to achieve this result.
The assumption that people will always take the best possible tactical approach is a false one in reality. I prefer a game where personality is not required to be enforced with mechanics. You clearly do not – hey, if sacrificing a bunch of babies is the best way to gain the Dragon’s trust and slip in to defeat him, I guess that’s what my Paladin would do, right?
<snip>
I get the sense that, in pemerton’s world, the character must be able to persuade the King by being foul mouthed just as effectively as a diplomatic character would persuade him with courtly manners. We should be framing only scenes where your Fighter can be most effective by being loud, ornery and foul-mouthed, and rewarding that play with bonuses and successes.
All this suggests that you have no understanding at all of what I'm talking about, and is close to contemptuous. Have you actually read any of the multiple actual play posts that I have linked to?
The correct inference would be that I prefer not to play a game in which the mechanically best approach for my honourable paladin to stop the dragon is to sacrifice people. That should be a choice that is driven by considerations of theme and value
that then inform the mechanical framing. And I would not like a GM who framed me into that sort of situation without regard to those matters of theme and value.
Conversely, if I am playing a foul-mouthed fighter, then why am I trying to persuade the king via Diplomacy? And why have I been framed into that scene? Until you give me some answers to those sorts of questions, how do you expect me to explain how I might GM such a scenario?
The fact you have indicated you first had to be “satisfied that it won't hurt the game for the wish to be granted” implies that, if you feel it would, then you would simply deny the granting of the wish at the outset.
I didn't say that I had to be satisfied in that way. I was working within [MENTION=58197]Dausuul[/MENTION]'s idea of rolling the dice - my pont was that, if a GM decides to roll the dice to see if a wish is available, s/he has decided that a wish can be obtained within the game.
Personally wishes are something I prefer to handle with a great deal of care. I'm not the biggest fan of the traditional D&D approach to wishes.
This seems to be exactly the type of “mother may I” play Hussar has consistently expressed disgust for.
[MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION] would not have any trouble learning whether or not wishes were available this way in a game that I was running.
I blow my top. I had spent several sessions. LEVELS (and this was 2e where leveling was glacially slow) getting all this stuff together. All for nothing. I'd have to try about 10 or 15 times per spell to succeed (each attempt taking weeks and lots of gold). I was so frustrated. It just totally ruined the character and the game for me.
