Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6422184" data-attributes="member: 42582">The random chance is affected by the PC's Streetwise skill.Can you explain how you think this is any different from Burning Wheel's Circle mechanic?Where does that theoretical possibility come from? The rules text states that the player specifies the item to be acquired. The examples given seem to me intended to reflect degree of illicitness - contrast easy licences with easy guns.I don't think the original Traveller rules have any statement equivalent to "rule zero" or White Wolf's "golden rule", but maybe I'm misrembering.The only person in this thread to flag that alternative was me. As an automatic success unless time matters, in which case it might be a Streetwise check. So I don't think it's any surprise that an earlier example that I gave resembles the earliest version of Streetwise skill with which I'm familiar!But in any event, the similarity is this: the player is entitled, within the play of the game, to take steps to introduce elements into the shared fiction that are not being created by his/her PC.A GM who, in adjudicating a Streetwise check in Traveller, rolled a d6 in [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s style to see if any guns were avaialable before setting the Streetwise DC would not be departing from the rules as written. Whether or not guns are available is, in part, influenced by the PC's Streetwise skill. It's much more like my example of deciding whether or not the door is open by reference to the player's Athletics check. That is, if the Streetwise check to get guns fails then the Traveller referee is free to state either "No guns were available" or "The guy you'd heard off won't sell you any guns". The rulebooks don't give advice on which option to choose when, but they leave both options open. Hence, it can't be the case that doing thing's LostSoul's way is paradigmatic of RPGing, and doing things my way is not, given that Traveller's 1977 edition is one of our paradigms of an RPG. They are different ways of RPGing which have been around for over 30 years.They are new in the sense of not having previously been authored. If J K Rowling writes a new Harry Potter book in which we're told that Harry's shoe size is 10 (or his left armpit is hairier than his right, or whatever other trivial detail has not yet been established), that is new information, even if it has always been true in the fiction.Likewise, if the players ask if the NPC has a beard, or if there are boxes in the alley, this requires the GM to create some new material. The fact that the material is not new within the shared fiction is irrelevant to the people in the real world, who nevertheless need to have some procedure for generating it.Nor is there anything saying that the GM shouldn't have regard to what the players want. And there are certainly example from Gygax which only make sense on the assumption that the GM is having regard to what the players want.I quoted Traveller upthread, a paradigm RPG from 1977, which stated that "The referee is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actualy has a responsibility to do so." What is the source and nature of that responsibility? Given that it is "to further the cause of the adventure being played", I think that it is natural to think that the author of those rules had the story in mind as one significant aspect of the adventure. A Traveller referee who set out to "further the cause of the adventure" but who didn't have regard to what the players are actually interested in probably wouldn't be doing a very good job, would s/he?From Moldvay Basic (1981, pages B19, B51):When the players have rolled up their characters and bought their equipment, the DM will describe the background of the adventure. This might include . . . some rumors about the dungeon the party is going to explore. . . . Before players can take their characters on adventures into dungeons, the DM must either create a dungeon or [sic] draw its map, or become famiiar with one of TSR's dungeon modules. . . . This section gives a step-by-step guide to creaeting a dungeon. . . . [Step]A. CHOOSE A SCENARIO A scenario is a background theme or idea which ties the dungeon together. A scenario will help keep a dungeon from becoming a boring repitition . . . A good scenario will always give the players a reason for adventuring.I don't see how this fits with what you say. It expressly states that the GM gets to tell the players which dungeon their PCs are exploring. It also says that the GM's dungeon should give the players (and their characters? I think that is what is intended) a reason to adventure.But perhaps Moldvay Basic is not an RPG but a storygame?What about AD&D? From Gygax's DMG (1979, p 96):Assume that you have assembled a group of players. Each has created a character, determined his or her race and profession, and spent some time carefully equipping these neophyte adventurers with everything that the limited funds available could purchase. Your participants are now eagerly awaiting instructions from you as to how to find the place they are to seek their fortunes in. You inform them that there is a rumor in the village . . . <snip scenario outline>In it's natural state, as presented by these two preeminent authors, D&D contemplates that the GM will design an adventure and the players will take their PCs through it. Moldvay contemplates that the characters will have a reason other than the basic metagame one of "seeking their fortunes". It's only a small step from that to the GM modulating aspects of the backstory in response to what is interesting to the players.</blockquote>

Verification