Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 8937984" data-attributes="member: 6690965">Okay this is interesting to me, because you're presenting exclusively situations that the players can't perceive, which I'd originally proposed as a necessary qualifier.Perhaps that isn't the case though. I would personally not resolve all those proposals the same way. The last two of these are some kind of knowledge/information check, which I would generally resolve for these characters exactly the same way I would for a PC. The first three I would not accept as PC proposals, unless they were in fact already true of those characters (or sufficiently inspiring that I could retroactively decide they were true, a different process*), and then I would only inform the PCs if they had some means to find them out.Having written that, I was going to propose modifying away from &quot;can be perceived with the senses&quot; as a prerequisite, but I don't think it's necessary. Those examples that I wouldn't resolve that way are pointing toward other skill based resolution systems for which I maintain PC/NPC equivalency as a first design principle.Edit: I forgot to talk about the random element outside of the skill checks. A GM deciding to use a randomizer to create a portion of the world is a pretty established practice, and I don't see much difference between a GM assenting to a PC proposal or deferring that to a randomizer, that's basically the same thing with an extra step.*This process is not, I would argue, a process of play, but a separate act of inspiration. It's more closely linked to say, a friend describing an interesting bit of a novel they'd read recently and that forming the basis for a villain or a merchant or something in my prep later.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 8937984, member: 6690965"] Okay this is interesting to me, because you're presenting exclusively situations that the players can't perceive, which I'd originally proposed as a necessary qualifier. Perhaps that isn't the case though. I would personally not resolve all those proposals the same way. The last two of these are some kind of knowledge/information check, which I would generally resolve for these characters exactly the same way I would for a PC. The first three I would not accept as PC proposals, unless they were in fact already true of those characters (or sufficiently inspiring that I could retroactively decide they were true, a different process*), and then I would only inform the PCs if they had some means to find them out. Having written that, I was going to propose modifying away from "can be perceived with the senses" as a prerequisite, but I don't think it's necessary. Those examples that I wouldn't resolve that way are pointing toward other skill based resolution systems for which I maintain PC/NPC equivalency as a first design principle. Edit: I forgot to talk about the random element outside of the skill checks. A GM deciding to use a randomizer to create a portion of the world is a pretty established practice, and I don't see much difference between a GM assenting to a PC proposal or deferring that to a randomizer, that's basically the same thing with an extra step. *This process is not, I would argue, a process of play, but a separate act of inspiration. It's more closely linked to say, a friend describing an interesting bit of a novel they'd read recently and that forming the basis for a villain or a merchant or something in my prep later. [/QUOTE]

Verification