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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5706014" data-attributes="member: 42582">In addition to The Shaman's reply that the fight is already on, I wanted to add this thought: it is possible to have a game in which the players states the goal for his/her PC's action, the GM sets the difficulty, and then the dice are rolled - and if they come up the player's way, the player gets what s/he wants.Burning Wheel is this sort of game. In my view, 4e is best played in this style also (it's what skill challenges are for). And in that sort of game, not only can the players have their PCs start throwing punches, they can make an Intimidate check, or a Streetwise check, or whatever the appropriate mechanic is, to make the NPCs fight back.For an actual play example of 4e played in this way (rather than a bar fight, it was provoking a wizard NPC to attack them during a formal dinner), see <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/4e-discussion/309950-actual-play-my-first-social-only-session.html" target="_blank">my post here</a>.And just to prove that I don't agree with The Shaman on everything - unless I missed something, you ([MENTION=31216]Bullgrit[/MENTION]) didn't cheat - as in, you didn't actually disregard any dice actually rolled as part of action resolution. It just sounds like you framed every situation spontaneously and in response to what had come before, rather than preparing it in advance. And that you made liberal use of "say yes" - as in, only got the action resolution mechanics into play when there was an actual conflict to be resolved.This isn't "telling a story and not playing a game". This is just GMing "indie style" rather than classical style. (What you describe sounds like it was pretty close to <a href="http://inky.org/rpg/no-myth.html" target="_blank">No Myth</a>.)EDIT:I picked up the absence of illusionism. I missed the hit point fudging, but am not 100% sure whether it's objectionable or not. Bullgrit could easily have decided instead that the monsters surrender, and this would produce an outcome similar to the hit point fudging. But not identical - the players would now have the surrendered foes to negotiate with - and maybe that's enough to show that the hit point fudging is objectionable.</blockquote>

Verification