Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6075725" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I get this to a large degree. It's even something I went for in my RPG; my people would dislike it for "having a rule for everything", while I quite like how that empowers players, since it allows them to use the rules (and build characters) reliably to achieve the ends they'd like to see as players once play actually begins. This is important to me. I also have NPCs follow the same exact rules (despite the objection to that from some on these boards), so that the players know exactly what to expect out of their enemies, friends, and the world at large, too.That's a cool goal, and I think -from what I've heard- that 4e does well on this, for the most part. From what I've seen on these boards, at least, I think it might fail when it comes to skills (and skill challenges, to a much, much lesser degree). Skills in 4e, on these boards, seem to be portrayed as rather open-ended, and to my knowledge, there isn't much there to really give players solid rules. They have some guidelines, but page 42 seems to be explicitly GM-controlled in setting the DC, some people use it  auto-scaling with level, while others use it more "objectively", there aren't many skill uses listed, etc.This is a big thing, for me, since skills in my game are used more often than combat rolls (though, admittedly, a lot of that has to do with play style). I went to great lengths to flesh out my skills, and give players ways to build on them (feats, rerolls, decreasing action times, negating penalties or DC increases, etc.). Is your experience with 4e skills different from what I seem to think it is? A lot of the anecdotes I've seen on these boards seem like it's a light game of "mother may I" (as the term is used here), in that players say what they're doing, but the GM decides how hard that is (setting a DC that hopefully remains somewhat consistent), or if that's even possible (ruling out skills in a skill challenge, the "objective" DC being too high for the PC to even make, etc.). Just curious on your thoughts on 4e and skills; I'm not trying to attack it, but since I haven't played, and I agree with you on 4e and combat "control over one's character", I'm curious what your thoughts are on it. Thanks. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Well, your phrasing of the question only kind of touches on what I read out of KM's post (though he answered you, so perhaps I'm off-base, here). I don't think he was saying that, in those games, PCs don't "engage the world" or "direct their actions" in the world. I think it's more along the lines of "directing" in the Hollywood sense (which is probably most meta-game powers). Though you do mention "define the world", and my players don't do that. They make characters that fit my setting, though oftentimes I work with their ideas for characters, which makes me add to my setting. But, if the idea just will not work within the setting, I say "no", and they don't play it.For example, if they said "I want to be a noble", I'd say "cool, put your Respect 1 into Nobility, and the more Status you get at character creation, the more you're liked, the stronger family you can be from, the more strings you can pull, and the like." We're good so far.If they said "I'm Respect 2 Nobility, and I want to be from the Terane family," I'd likely say "the Terane family requires Respect 4 Nobility, which is the beginning of the 'Major Nobility' Respect level." So, my answer would likely be "no, you need Respect 4 to be a Terane; here are other families you can be from at Respect 2."If they said "I'm Respect 4 Nobility, and I want to be from the Terane family," I'd be fine with it (as long as they used resources at creation to get up to Respect 4). If they went on to say "also, I'm going to be an orc" then I'd say "no, the Terane family are all humans, so you'd likely need to be one of those." If they said "likely?" I'd probably go on to say that I'd allow a half-orc with a plausible reason (even though I'd never intended to do that before). And if they wanted to do that, then I'd allow it.It's about them fitting into the context of the setting that I come up with. I'll allow changes, based on their creations (I've added organizations when they've said they wanted to be part of one; I've added sects of supernatural people in low-magic settings, when they've wanted to come from them; I've added races, when they asked to be a particularly inspired and original race that they came up with). But, it has to fit my setting.The players definitely get to engage the world, and direct their actions within it. They act, or react, and the world spins on. They don't, however, define the world. They work themselves in; they experience it; they engage it. My players need to worry about being a part of the world, and playing their characters, not creating pieces of the setting. That's my job. And yeah, I'll definitely work with players on it if they have a concept in mind. But I'll define the world that they play in.I get that other people play differently, and that's cool. If you do, awesome. I've asked for stuff from players before, on the setting, too. In the past, I've done everything from "everyone gives me one fact about the setting, before I make it" to "what type of fantasy genre are you guys interested in playing?" Other times, it's "this is the setting; let me help you fit in." It just depends.Does that give you an idea of what that type of game would look like? It means that when you make a character, you incorporate it into a setting, not make a character and dictate the setting around it (this can go for in-game actions, too). And, again, it's fine if you want to play differently (personally, I'm a lot more loose with Mutants and Masterminds than my fantasy games). I've got nothing against people playing differently. But that's what a "players don't define the game" looks like, from where I'm sitting. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification