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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8528300" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, OK, I'm still rather skeptical of a couple of things. First there doesn't seem to be any structure to introduction of fiction. So, can I simply, as a player, introduce basically any consideration by simply decreeing it to be a motivation or goal of my character as and when I wish? To what degree is it really necessary for the GM to acknowledge one of these statements? I mean, this seems to be a very unstructured process, and again this is why I conveyed my doubts in terms of this being a 'game'. You also illustrate the issue with achievement of goals in cases where an issue is in doubt (IE the attacking the 'bear man' and what the results are/who actually gets to narrate them). If we were to go back to 5e*, then we have to ask some of the same questions. Exactly what regulates what the players can say about the character's motivations and actions, and what they refer to? Is this related to things like BIFTs? There are also questions similar to above about resolution of conflicts. We've already gone over the whole thing with 5e's shaky conception of when checks are required and what the results signify. Since 5e(*) definitely give the GM both the responsibility to determine if a check is needed, and what will be checked, but also what the 'valence' of that check is, doesn't this kind of put most of the autonomy back in the GM's court? That is to say, and this is classic GM behavior, what stops a GM from simply stacking up checks? The GM is pushing some sort of fiction, so if the players wander off in some other direction, the classic GM response is to make all other paths filled with obstacle after obstacle and each check produce only marginal progress, except in their preferred direction. Yes, maybe you can all this 'bad GM play', OTOH experience dictates that a system of principles, clear agenda, and positively reinforcing game structure is helpful. So, I'm still a bit more in favor of a more ground-up approach than just making small changes to 5e. That's just my preference.</blockquote>

Verification