Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8321910" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, if I declare I'm going to cut these guards down with my axe! then you as GM may have to consider the guards' general disposition, in multiple senses - how many are there? where are they? how do they react (eg do they flee in terror? etc - as well as matters like can they dodge? and can they fight back?Some RPGs codify those matters, using descriptors and/or mechanics. The same can be done for dispositions vis-a-vis people turning up with pickled eels to deliver. (Classic Traveller, published in 1977, handles this with a simple reaction roll table.)There are multiple options for determining how PCs react. Player freedom and mechanical repercussions are not the only two options.For instance, in classic D&amp;D play if a PC is dead or is subject to Charm Person, then there are limits - in the first case, extreme ones! - on the actions that the player can declare for his/her PC. Classic Traveller has player-facing morale rules. Burning Wheel has similar (via Steel) but more generally allows players to be constrained by social resolution outcomes. Prince Valiant is mechanically less intricate than BW but in its fundamentals is the same in this respect.RPGers have various preferences here, but from the point of view of design and process, there is nothing distinctive between the way death and Charm Person work in classic D&amp;D and the way those other player-facing mechanical frameworks work.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8321910, member: 42582"] Well, if I declare [I]I'm going to cut these guards down with my axe! [/I]then you as GM may have to consider the guards' general disposition, in multiple senses - [I]how many are there? where are they? how do they react (eg do they flee in terror?[/I] etc - as well as matters like [I]can they dodge?[/I] and [I]can they fight back?[/I] Some RPGs codify those matters, using descriptors and/or mechanics. The same can be done for dispositions vis-a-vis people turning up with pickled eels to deliver. (Classic Traveller, published in 1977, handles this with a simple reaction roll table.) There are multiple options for determining how PCs react. [I]Player freedom [/I]and [I]mechanical repercussions[/I] are not the only two options. For instance, in classic D&D play if a PC is [I]dead[/I] or is [I]subject to Charm Person[/I], then there are limits - in the first case, extreme ones! - on the actions that the player can declare for his/her PC. Classic Traveller has player-facing morale rules. Burning Wheel has similar (via Steel) but more generally allows players to be constrained by social resolution outcomes. Prince Valiant is mechanically less intricate than BW but in its fundamentals is the same in this respect. RPGers have various preferences here, but from the point of view of design and process, there is nothing distinctive between the way [I]death [/I]and [I]Charm Person[/I] work in classic D&D and the way those other player-facing mechanical frameworks work. [/QUOTE]

Verification