Search results

Sure, I get that... I was just explaining why it might seem difficult for someone to grasp that a GM would actively not consider fun. That was the question you asked of @Hussar , so I just figured I'd offer an answer because it seems obvious to me, even if I realize that the expectations of play...

Is this checked per hex? Or by travel time? If an encounter is indicated, how is the encounter then determined? So this is essentially a set encounter? I mean, I suppose that if the party delayed it may have changed the nature of the encounter... perhaps they'd have come across the aftermath...

It does seem odd to advocate against choosing fun when playing a game. I know that’s not exactly what anyone has said, but there’s an element here of “why would you not choose the fun thing?”

I looked it over. A lot of it is perfectly clear, but there are some areas that I’m not sure what happened. I’ve quoted those below. This is vague. What is the process for rolling for encounters? What are the chances an encounter will happen? What encounters may happen? So this was a...

I’ll just quote an earlier post of yours where you said it. Did I misread this post in some way? Well, regardless of how fantastic a setting may be, there are still going to be some elements that are at least somewhat grounded, meaning they should work similarly to how we expect them to. If...

What are the factors that go into this decision? When do we go to dice? When do we just pick? Or pick multiple outcomes? For example, @robertsconley has said that verisimilitude is his highest priority. @Bedrockgames has said his is character agency. These different priorities may play a part...

I don’t disagree with this at all. It’s one of the things I’ve been pointing out. Sure, but how is plausibility of different events compared? Certainly there’d be some obvious answers when two possibilities are compared. But there are also going to be some that are equally plausible, or close...

Is there an RPG where that’s not the case? I think most RPGs and most GMs are going to try and maintain plausibility. Unless perhaps if the setting is meant to be absurd… something like Alice in Wonderland or similar. When we consider that, this idea of plausibility seems less important...

We’re talking about extrapolation. There’s a starting point, which includes many relevant factors. A king, his disposition, his goals, his bond with his daughter, his enemies. All determined by the GM. The PCs then do something. The GM then decides what happens afterward, based on the PCs’...

And do you expect most events would yield only one possible result such that anything else would be illogical? Or do you think that most events would be likely to yield several potential outcomes?

The scenario is not one designed to prove my point. As I said, it was posed by @thefutilist not far upthread. I just used that. If the elements of the setting that the GM has created have been detailed enough that they can function as a “machine running on their own”, then I’d expect them to...

No, I’m considering player actions. Look at the example @thefutilist offered not far back. The arcane assassins fail to kill the cruel king… but kill his daughter. How does the king react? Let’s say the assassins are the PCs. How does the king respond to the PCs’ actions? This can be...

I agree with you that it doesn’t break world logic. But the GM picking one is the GM determining how things will go. Determining the direction of play. And when combined with the above, determining the direction of play does seem to lean toward GM as storyteller. I don’t think that it must be...

No, not at all. I’m surprised that’s what you took away from my post. My point is that the world doesn’t actually react, the GM makes decisions or uses procedures to depict how the world reacts. Which may seem silly to point out, but I’ve noticed a tendency for some folks to attribute such...

To clarify, it’s not the method that’s BS. It’s a GM making decisions and attributing those to “the world” that’s BS. As I said waaaay back, the GM should own their decisions. I don’t know if it does. I mean… usually more than one outcome is possible and plausible. If you’re just deciding...

It’s a cop out . It’s disclaiming decision making after play by blaming it on “the world” rather than disclaiming it during play by relying on dice or some similar procedure. It’s BS.

Yes, absolutely. My goal as a GM is to present a plausible world and scenarios that follow from what’s already happened in play and so on… but it’s also to provide the players with a game to play. That means my decisions about the world are not only based on plausibility and the fiction of the...

Didn't you just a few pages back exclaim how much you love the term meta-agency? Yes, this was my point! I see the two things as being very similar in that sense. I don't think anyone playing Burning Wheel or any game that handles things similarly to look at that moment of play and say "I lost...

Right, but I'm trying to view it in context... which you say is important to you. Losing control of your character is a form of agency loss. But my point is that it is an understood risk and so, when we look at play on the whole, it makes far less sense to call that instance of play a loss of...

Evading? I don’t even know what you’re on about. I was, I thought, clearly joking in my last couple of posts to you.