L
lowkey13
Guest
*Deleted by user*
What "most"? Fate, PbtA, MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic, Classic Traveller, Burning Wheel, 4e D&D - these are just some of the RPGs I know of which don't fit your description - they have resolution systems for non-combat action declarations which aren't exhausted by "The GM decides". Even AD&D gestured towards this with the NWPs in Oriental Adventures, although there are obvious weaknesses in the mechanical implementation.
I search for a secret window?No one thinks that, if a GM narrates a room with a door but no windows, the action declaration "I climb through the window" is going to have a chance of success.
Unless the challenge being put is actually for the players/PCs to look beyond the obviously-invited violent response, think outside the box a bit, and go to plan B; be it negotiation, flight, bribery, surrender, or whatever. And this can come before or after the PCs realize their weapons can't harm the Knight.If a group of players were playing PCs who had no magical attack forms, and the GM framed those PCs into a situation which (i) very clearly invited a violent resopnse, and (ii) involved a being able to be hurt only by magical attack forms, then in my view that would be an instance of exactly what [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION] is talking about.
Of course not*. It's just one of many little resolutions that add up to the overall resolution of the combat.In D&D, being told your fear effect doesn't affect the Death Kinght doesn't end the resolution process for fighting a death knight.
Sure. There are many restaurant tables at which meat is eaten. There are also many restaurant tables at which meat is not eaten. Hence an assumption that eating at a restaurant entails eating meat will not be true at many restaurant tables. The fact that there are many other tables at which the assumption holds is beside the point.Well, you said that Sadras was making assumptions about play practices.
I think that his assumptions are somewhat well-founded.
I am sure that there are some tables that play diceless games.
I am sure that there are some tables that play games with dice with no fudging.
I think based on the available evidence that Sadras's questions about fudging do, in fact, "extend to many RPG tables."
No RPG can enforce a certain mode of play, but how the game is constructed can make it more trouble than it's worth to retool it. 4e was like that for me. I found myself having to re-write so many rules to make it playable by me that I just gave up and went back to 3e. D&D is only mildly DM facing, because it's very, very easy to retool it to fit just about any playstyle.
In all those non D&D games are there monsters which are immune to certain effects or damage types?
For instance, in 5e, Death Knights are immune to exhaustion, being frightened and poison.
Does the table decide if these monsters may be immune? Can bennies be spent to overcome the immunity? If not, I suggest those games be included under your MMI label because the players' mechanical resolution includes some hard No's if particular damage is deemed irrelevant. To argue otherwise is nonsense.
You seem very wedded to your opinion. I would point out that arguing from the specific to the general is rarely accurate. For instance, samurai were largely a very polite and rigidly structured society, especially based as it was on martial power and obligation. The example of Musashi, whom you point out fought many duels, is a goid example of this. Dueling in feudal Japan was part of the social rituals avoiding widespread violence and were formal affairs that where largely non-lethal. Duels that were lethal avoided larger violence. Your characterization is very shallow and dismissive of a complex society.
Gentlemen's Peace's, as you note, do not avoid violence. They channel it and limit it's scope. For someone that just said there are muktiple factors, you seem very eager to dismiss complex interactions on the basis of a few examples.