Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9396145" data-attributes="member: 42582">I didn't refer to a &quot;type&quot; of game. I referred to a particular RPG: Apocalypse World.And I conjectured more than asserted that D&amp;D 5e does not have a way to resolve all declared actions, based on the fact that (i) many 5e players seem to say this, and (ii) many 5e players seem to take different views about what the way is to resolve a wide category of &quot;non core&quot; action declarations, and (iii) the only mooted way for resolving any declared actions - GM decides - is often rejected by 5e players as a mid-description of the game. (Although in this thread, multiple 5e players seem to endorse it.)I don't think I've written that DL-ish/AP-ish module play isn't GM decides: generally, it's a special case of GM decides based on &quot;secret notes&quot;.If the GM can, on the basis of secret notes, have the befriended NPC nevertheless betray the PCs, then the system is 100% GM decides in my view. This comes out in your framing: the players have to declare more actions to detect that something is &quot;off&quot;, to gain info about the kidnapped children, etc. As opposed to (just as one example) the successful befriending by the PCs meaning that the NPC shares with them his fears for his children (just as one might with friends).What follows from dice rolls? And what rules/constraints govern the GM's decision-making?If the GM is free to disregard successful checks - as in the NPC betrayal example - then the dice rolls aren't actually moving the procedure away from GM decides. They're just a gloss or twist on it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9396145, member: 42582"] I didn't refer to a "type" of game. I referred to a particular RPG: Apocalypse World. And I conjectured more than asserted that D&D 5e does not have a way to resolve all declared actions, based on the fact that (i) many 5e players seem to say this, and (ii) many 5e players seem to take different views about what the way is to resolve a wide category of "non core" action declarations, and (iii) the only mooted way for resolving any declared actions - [I]GM decides[/I] - is often rejected by 5e players as a mid-description of the game. (Although in this thread, multiple 5e players seem to endorse it.) I don't think I've written that DL-ish/AP-ish module play isn't GM decides: generally, it's a special case of GM decides based on "secret notes". If the GM can, on the basis of secret notes, have the befriended NPC nevertheless betray the PCs, then the system is 100% GM decides in my view. This comes out in your framing: the players have to declare more actions to detect that something is "off", to gain info about the kidnapped children, etc. As opposed to (just as one example) the successful befriending by the PCs meaning that the NPC shares with them his fears for his children (just as one might with friends). What follows from dice rolls? And what rules/constraints govern the GM's decision-making? If the GM is free to disregard successful checks - as in the NPC betrayal example - then the dice rolls aren't actually moving the procedure away from GM decides. They're just a gloss or twist on it. [/QUOTE]

Verification