Search results

Can you be more concrete about what you actually mean here. Can you describe what sort of things you wish a s player to know about the GM decision making and what concrete impacts knowing or not knowing those will have?

On my Current setting Artra following intelligent species exist: Common playable: Human Eldri (small elves with horns and tails) Orc Uncommon playable: Gnoll Kobol (dog kobold) Lizardfolk (with dragonborn mixed in) Totori (tortle) Goblin Kreen (thri-kreen) Aarakoa (skeksis-like aarakocra)...

That seemed like very complicated way of saying that you do not like sim-immersionism. I am not sure if the implication is that sim-immersionism is somehow "wrong" of "faulty" way to play. In any case it is the most popular approach to RPGs, so it seems to work quite a well for a lot of people 🤷...

BTW, regarding different ways to run mysteries and various Cthulhu games being used as example, I think it is rather weird how Call of Cthulhu has become probably the best known mystery solving game and it operates mostly on objective mystery paradigm. I'm not sure that is actually a good fit...

Yes, once things are locked down, they become objective. And apparently in this case the earl being missing and the reason being lycanthropy (or húainathropy?) were nailed down pretty early on, and as those are the central elements of the mystery, that is decent amount of objectivity. Though it...

Indeed, such as whether a lone character can leave camp in Torchbearer, or whether a player can invent a clue that proves specific thing in Burning Wheel. 🤷 Mate. I am not saying it is problematic. This bloody thread was started by a person implying that GM fiat is bad and you've agreed with...

He's already ignored my previous questions. Yes, in a sense that you think it for some reason is insightful to point out that in make believe everything is made up whereas I think it is an utterly pointless observation. Dear Athe, give me strength! I'm sure you also think it is immaterial...

Why they don't have the bonuses as one precalculated number?

And there is insane amount of leeway within that. And of course in any game there are in practice limits on what the GM can make up, be they plausibility, fairness, themes etc. It is just that in a game where salient details are predetermined there is less need to make up things on the spot in...

So why are we interrogating in exact detail the GM needing to make up on spot some details in a scenario where most of the salient facts are predetermined, and not @pemerton apparently making up basically the whole scenario as he goes along? Whatever one thinks of GM fiat, the latter obviously...

Good luck with that!

Yes, definitely. I think it is even worse from the player perspective, at least to me.

Yep, this is what I do as well. I like degree of success. However, it is not needed for everything and some things can be simple pass/fail. I like a system that can easily handle both.

"I search the parlour for footprints and other clues. My intent is to find proof that Lord Calverton was here at the night of the murder." "I carefully examine the document that proved that Miss Weller was guilty. My intent is to find it to be a forgery." Etc. Valid?

So these are good principles and this is how I run my game. And you're correct, that for "real solving" we've been talking about, fairness and integrity are important. Realism really isn't. But I don't think anyone on the "real mystery" side has been talking about realism. Only @pemerton keeps...

So I do not mean that this would be best way to play 4e, but that it would be a game that would work well if played this way. I am not trying to claim it didn't have fiction. But the rules are very self contained in a way that requires less adjudication vis-à-vis fiction than many other games...

Or perhaps the resolution relies on phrenology? Your a bit in straw grasping territory here. Most key clues are not like that. They are about material proof, alibis, motivations and capability. Furthermore, realism is not a requirement. That is not what "real" refers to here. It merely requires...

I think one could play pawn stance dungeon delving basically as board game and I think people do that. 4e D&D was particularly suitable for this as its rules were so self contained. I don't play like this and I never have, but it definitely is a thing.

So you think it is annoying that people have hyper specific semantic quibbles! :rolleyes: :ROFLMAO: