Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6449141" data-attributes="member: 87792">All I can say to that is 'Mu'.  A skill challenge is a generalised challenge (as opposed to task) resolution mechanic. And when I run them they only appear as a DM-side tool when the PCs have chosen what to do.  To avoid skill challenges the PCs would have to avoid their own plans.And no guarantee in any other mode of play either the PCs will realise how deep water they are in.And the idea that PCs had the freedom to invent parts of the game world (as with Mike Mornard's baby balrog PCs, one of whom invented the Balrog Times and he invented the concept of a Balrog Reporter for (using his thumb as the flash)) was the default by design.  The design default was also one of shifting DMs and in which no one DM had full control of the world because different people would DM different dungeons.You appear to be in the first wave of players of the published rules.  Which is where things like this appear to have got lost.Not if everyone is on the same page and the game designers weren't idiots.  But there are games (notably Cyberpunk 2013/2020 and Shadowrun) that even go so far as to have the Hacker/Decker play their own separate mini-game.To me, the idea that someone would show up at the table hating everyone adding to the richness of the world and thereby bringing in player authorship so much that if the game moved in that direction they'd be forced to leave is kind of wrong.  Those people don't really like D&D.And it isn't just the responsibility of the players to be flexible but also the responsibility of the DM to be flexible.Indeed. And so do you.  By hating player authorship you only like the subset of D&D that caters to your particular needs/wants.Absolutely.  And both as DM and as a player I invariably find games with player authorship more interesting than those without.From this there are a limited number of conclusions I can draw:<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">You have been exceptionally unlucky in the players you play with</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I have been exceptionally lucky in the players I play with</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Forms of DMing that cripple the players ability to have their character interact with the world encourage players to act in bad faith</li> </ol>Personally from experience I believe point 3 to be true.  The more freedom you give me the less I feel constrained and as if I need to wrest my character's agency from the GM by whatever means I can.  I've seen the same with other players and in other games.To me this is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transactional_analysis" target="_blank">basic transactional analysis</a>.  The players who are being allowed to establish things are being treated by the GM as adults and behave as adults, playing fairly.  The players who are playing in The GM's Setting and are not allowed much leeway are being treated as children and so behave as children, trying to sneak past adult authority.And in my experience the very notion of wanting to trick the DM into giving them more power is a consequence of the DM trying to restrict them past the point they find fun.  When one of my players says "Hey, how about this..." they normally are quite deliberately screwing over their own character.Indeed.  The DM isn't obligated.  So far no one has produced a system with player authorship where the DM is obligated to accept it rather than it being the default that they do unless they have a good reason to decide otherwise.Where "some later RPGs" include the original game of Braunstein that inspired Dave Arneson to create D&D, and in both the original Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns, as relayed by first hand accounts.As for RPGs involve interacting with a setting through their character, yes they do.  Player authorship used by players who aren't trying to wreck the game is a necessary tool to allow the player characters to interact with the setting rather than forcing the players to interact with the GM.How about stopping explaining and try reading what others have to say.Without player authorship I am not affecting the setting through my character.  I'm affecting the setting through the GM.  Every step of interaction with the setting is mediated between the player and the GM.  It's like playing an old school text adventure.  You enter the room.  There is a large dining table in the centre of the room.  It has been set > Look at table.  On the table there are three place settings, a slowly cooling turkey > Get carving knife from table You have a carving knife > Turn and stab assassin with carving knife You attack the assassin I'm not interacting with the setting.  I'm interacting with the user interface.Now let's have the same scene, with me doing what I'm trying to do with player establishment.I run down the corridor and thinking fast I dive into the dining room.  I know we're here for Thanksgiving Dinner, and the table is almost certain to be set so I pick up one of the overpriced wedgewood plates and throw it backwards; if he's right on my heels it should buy me time to dart round the table and grab the carving knife and fork and, if the assassin is still following me, I lunge at him.Which one is more immersive?  Which one flows better?  Which one is more fun?  Because they are different methods of the character in character trying to do exactly the same thing.  And yes, the GM had intended the turkey to be on the table in the second example.  But hadn't narrated that.  So adapts.I understand that you don't get what we do and don't actually like the PCs interacting directly with the setting rather than filtered through the medium of the DM, and I'm glad you enjoy your games.</blockquote>

Verification