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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8272507" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, because you seem to have completely misunderstood my point and instead landed at "the player understands what the outcome is after it happens, and maybe can see how the GM used one of the techniques, so your argument it increases ambiguity for the player is wrong."  Except that I've been explicitly talking about the risk envelope for an action, which occurs when the player is suggesting the action to begin with.  Take the intimidate the kobold example.  As a player, I declare and action to intimidate the kobold into telling me secrets.  When I look at the possible outcome space for this check, I can approach it from the baseline -- failure on the check means no progress.  So, I make the check, and if I fail, then the kobold doesn't tell me anything.  This seems fine, so I make the check, and fail by 2.  However, the GM decides, at this point, to enact success at cost, and goes with the example -- the kobold tells me the secrets I wanted (maybe, honestly it could be anything here, it's all up to the GM) but does so by screaming loudly and alerting nearby kobolds!  Now, the issue here is that the player had one expectation of the outcome space -- success or no progress -- but this is not what the actual outcome space was.  Perhaps, had the player been aware that the kobold could, without the player being able to stop them, start screaming to alert the rest of the kobolds on a failure, they might have taken a different action or made some allowances for precautions.  However, they misunderstood the possible outcome space because the GM decides to use success at a cost and decided this was the cost they wanted.  These rules give the GM even more space on the resolution of tasks (and, honestly, I'd argue the GM takes this space anyway because no GM I know follows the baseline suggestions of just no progress on a failed check), and this means that the possible outcome space is even more opaque to the player, not less.  It's just more permission for the GM to do whatever they want, and not a structure that improves play by informing players of the risk envelope and enabling agency to make meaningful choices.Again, the usual response to this is an appeal to GM trust, but that's a table issue, not a system support one.  The additional ways to adjudicate actions just put more on the GM decides plate, so it's not really support so much as more shuffling off onto the GM how things will work.No, there isn't, this is a bad take on the system.  The GM in PbtA can either say yes to an action declaration or they can challenge it with the mechanics.  The mechanics absolutely tell you how they work - you do not need to ask the GThe result of that check will absolutely bind all parties to the outcomes -- no one needs to ask the GM how it works.Nope, this is an appeal to popularity.  You're saying that the issue I'm bringing up is misguided because so many popular games use it.  This isn't addressing the quality of the issue, or it's arguments, it's saying that since so many popular things do it, it must be wrong.  It's a classic appeal to popularity.No, we wouldn't, this is a strawman.  I happen to think that Cyberpunk does heists slightly better than D&D, but has the same tendencies to devolve to A-Team results due to the same issues in the systems.  Still, it at least has a few better formed mechanics for heists (or capers) than D&D does, because it has a bit more codification which makes players better able to ascertain the risks of a given action.  Still, it's not great, just passable.  Cyberpunk's big draw is really it's setting, not it's gameplay.I have no idea what Hard-Wired Island is, I cannot speak to it.  Forgive me if I'm not taking your gloss here as definitive enough to form an opinion.Page 242 is not bad.  I told you this was a bad take above, but you seem to be wedded to persisting with it.  I'm saying that it doesn't actually provide more support for "capers" because it causes as much harm to that goal and any assistance is provides.  Largely, this is because it just puts more on the GM decides plate, making it not support, but more idiosyncratic for a given table.</blockquote>

Verification