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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6230080" data-attributes="member: 59082">Fair enough. Although, again, I am not advocating an approach that is only "freeform descriptions by players" but rather re-emphasizes that in addition to and perhaps primary to defined resources. As I see it, this is an aspect of game play that has been de-emphasized in the AEDU paradigm.I think AEDU limits imagination only insofar as it channels player action into pre-described and defined actions, which are in turn abstractions of actual "in play" action. In other words, a power is an abstract game term which is a step removed from the character's action itself within the campaign world.You seem to be implying that I think PCs should haven't any statistics, and defined traits or skills or powers. That is not the case at all. I'm just interested in an approach in which the resources of a character and are pre-described as AEDU, which (for me) furthers the separation between player and character, with the player "operating" the character by determining which resources they use in a given situation, rather than the player imagining him or herself as the character within the situation, and acting accordingly. If a pre-described resource fits that action, then all the better. You misunderstood what I said, and I've already re-explained this. I did not say that being an improvisational battle captain should be met by that response from the GM; what I did say was that a GM should never say "no," even in a near-impossible situation, but at least give the option to try, even if it is "very, very difficult." As with any PC action. The player describes what he or she wants to do and the DM offers a target number to accomplish it. There might be discussion as to which character stats are employed - whether it is a straight up ability check, or if there is a skill involved, an attack, etc. In most cases it is clearly obvious, and a player will usually play to their character's strengths (e.g. a low Charisma PC won't usually try to be an inspirational battle captain, but they can - even if they don't have the power or feat for it).I haven't played older editions of D&D (pre-3e) in decades, so I think someone who has would be better suited to answer specifics. But the "modern" versions of the game based upon the d20 mechanic--3e, 4e, and 5e--all have a clear core resolution that can used: d20 roll + ability + relevant modifiers vs. target number. Within that framework any action can be resolved. It requires that a player comes up with an action--whether pre-defined or not--and the DM adjudicates by defining a target number.It seems to me that you struggle with the idea of the DM somewhat arbitrarily coming up with a target number? Remember also that the target number is usually easy to define - it could be the Armor Class or, in 5e, a Difficulty Class which ranges from 5 ("Easy") to 35 ("Nearly Impossible").The key here is that there's a kind of unspoken agreement of trust, that the player's will trust the judgment and fairness of the DM, but also that the DM is willing to be flexible.I agree with all of that, with the caveat that the DM - at least in my game and the games I've played - has veto power and can adjust things as he or she sees fit. Not arbitrarily or petulantly, but because only the DM knows what is "really" going on in the game world...for me this is a necessary aspect of player sense of mystery. The player comes up with a back-story, even a homeland etc, but the DM can take that and modify it to fit the game world, and to perhaps produce plot threads that can be employed later on. For example, let's say a player says that he was an orphan who was taken in by a duke and raised as a household squire and later became a knight. The DM might know something about that orphan that the player doesn't - that he's actually the son of the deposed king, the duke's dead brother. That sort of thing.As I've said, it seems that where we differ is the degree to which the DM is "omnipotent" and "omniscient." I see it as being essentially complete. It doesn't mean that a DM will ignore the desires of a player, but that they have the freedom to re-frame them or re-contextualize them within the greater whole of the game and world.Actually, in my mind this is a necessary component of immersion and player enjoyment - not knowing what's off the edge of the map, new surprises being introduced, "Wait, I'm the heir to the throne?!" For me there's something lost when the player says, "I want to secretly be the heir to the throne but not know it." Its sort of like Christmas presents. I like there to be some degree of surprise, not simply a list of wished for gifts. In some ways, the AEDU paradigm is like having a list of gifts and only things on that list can be purchased. Obviously in the 4e game this isn't true, but simply having the list implies that it is true. If nothing else, the list should begin and end with "Or just ignore this and follow your inspiration - surprise me!" I suppose the best-of-both-worlds is to get some items on your wish list and a surprise or two.Of course with surprises you never know what you're going to get--but that's the spice of life!</blockquote>

Verification