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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 8931004" data-attributes="member: 6690965">That's a mechanic that prompts the DM to change the adjectives used to describe the situation, but doesn't in any way change player decision making. On the other hand, if I can climb any wall at full speed, one handed while wielding a weapon at a DC 30 or whatever, then I can use that information to play differently than a character who can't do that, and differently than I could before I could do that.Yes, that is getting asserted a lot.Ultimately, I want to climb this mountain and light a signal fire. It probably signals the Rohirrim or something. To do that, presumably I need to deal with an icy cliff and who knows what else between here and there. In the model of games I like, several salient facts might include the ambient weather conditions, the height of the cliff, visibility and so on. I might then pick a tool, like say, throwing a grappling hook, hammering in some pitons, carving handholds with an ice axe, just barehanded climbing it, casting levitate, and so on.I'll pick from that set of tools, whichever one I think will best achieve my goal here. If the cliff is short, probably that grappling hook, if I have time and a reasonable climb check, probably the pitons or ice axe, if I'm being pursued or afraid to make noise, maybe the spell slot or potion of levitate, or if I think my odds of success are good enough, maybe I'll just climb.The advantage of mechanics that do not care what the player wants, and can only accept the input of what the player does, is that you can chart more than one path to getting what the player wants, and that these paths can be of different lengths, and that you can then make a bunch of different decisions about how you get there.Ideally, there's no need for the character's and players motivations to diverge. Wanting to play well, and wanting to get survive and get something done should lead them both to making the same decisions.You're projecting a whole series of goals on to me there that I never claimed. Generally, I think goals are a function of roleplaying. Your character cares about the people of this village and wants them not to die in the oncoming flood, your character wants revenge for the murder of their sister, your character has heard stories about this mysterious maze for years and wants to know what's inside, that layer is where you get the victory conditions for your game from, and the ability to pick new ones, and keep playing after you achieve them or they become unachievable is what differentiates an RPG from most board games.This is where it feels like we're speaking entirely separate languages. How do I play well, when the mechanic is structured to keep causing bad things to happen to me? What planning can I do to avoid them? I'm trying to describe the course of action that doesn't give you any choice but to say "you get off the island safely" when I'm done doing it, and if that doesn't occur, I want to think about why it didn't occur, and try to find something else I could have done to make it occur. At some point, I'll likely be forced to try something that has a chance not to succeed, and I can point to that risk and say "well, that was the best line of play, I think I still made the right choice" and then deal with the resulting new board state.</blockquote>

Verification