Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 6312799" data-attributes="member: 23935">Extrapolation should be influenced by knowledge of the scenario.&nbsp; What do faction know and want, for example.&nbsp; What I don't want to do is make qualitative assessment of the players success and adjust the scenario on the fly either through adding or deleting elements of the situation or by adjusting original difficulty.&nbsp; &nbsp; &quot;This has been a cakewalk; I better double the number of opponents!&quot;&nbsp; &quot;The PCs are too lucky; the BBEG shouldn't have failed his save in the first round I wanted him to get away!&quot; &quot;The PCs are really struggling; I think they'll find a new ally in the next room&quot;.&nbsp; To a large extent that's true.&nbsp; There are a lot of scenarios I ran for my CHAMPIONS groups that would require extensive re-write since the scenarios were heavily personalised using the tools and levers in the system (Disadvantages, Perks, etc.) i.e. the scenarios were interdependent with the PCs.&nbsp; It is less true for the scenarios I devised for D&amp;D and other games where such levers have less impact and thus more independence.&nbsp; I have run different groups through the same scenarios in D&amp;D and enjoyed the different play experiences and watching the different consequences unfold.And DM interference adds noise to the signal.&nbsp; If the DM interferes to adjust an outcome the players cannot use the result obtained as a fair data point.&nbsp; If the players do not know about the interference and do use the result as a data point, the model they develop will diverge from the game.&nbsp; In other words, they will assume similar interference as part of their model.You play out the chase to determine what resources are expended, if any and how much time was gained by the opponents, and if the PCs manage to discover the ruse and thus gain more knowledge of the opponent's abilities.&nbsp; In other words, you do it to determine consequence and situation extrapolation. So long as the figment was adjudicated correctly, of course.&nbsp; Most such devices don't have the capacity to travel far, act independently, or to respond to new environments.It comes down to the author's intent and context.&nbsp; He did have limited space.&nbsp; I am willing to assume the author was trying to address DMs working at the table level as opposed to working with in-game motivations.&nbsp; Rust monsters still leap at plate mail.&nbsp; NPCs with sunder will treat it as an option.&nbsp; Factions will try to further their agendas.&nbsp; I don't think he is addressing that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 6312799, member: 23935"] Extrapolation should be influenced by knowledge of the scenario. What do faction know and want, for example. What I don't want to do is make qualitative assessment of the players success and adjust the scenario on the fly either through adding or deleting elements of the situation or by adjusting original difficulty. "This has been a cakewalk; I better double the number of opponents!" "The PCs are too lucky; the BBEG shouldn't have failed his save in the first round I wanted him to get away!" "The PCs are really struggling; I think they'll find a new ally in the next room". To a large extent that's true. There are a lot of scenarios I ran for my CHAMPIONS groups that would require extensive re-write since the scenarios were heavily personalised using the tools and levers in the system (Disadvantages, Perks, etc.) i.e. the scenarios were interdependent with the PCs. It is less true for the scenarios I devised for D&D and other games where such levers have less impact and thus more independence. I have run different groups through the same scenarios in D&D and enjoyed the different play experiences and watching the different consequences unfold. And DM interference adds noise to the signal. If the DM interferes to adjust an outcome the players cannot use the result obtained as a fair data point. If the players do not know about the interference and do use the result as a data point, the model they develop will diverge from the game. In other words, they will assume similar interference as part of their model. You play out the chase to determine what resources are expended, if any and how much time was gained by the opponents, and if the PCs manage to discover the ruse and thus gain more knowledge of the opponent's abilities. In other words, you do it to determine consequence and situation extrapolation. So long as the figment was adjudicated correctly, of course. Most such devices don't have the capacity to travel far, act independently, or to respond to new environments. It comes down to the author's intent and context. He did have limited space. I am willing to assume the author was trying to address DMs working at the table level as opposed to working with in-game motivations. Rust monsters still leap at plate mail. NPCs with sunder will treat it as an option. Factions will try to further their agendas. I don't think he is addressing that. [/QUOTE]

Verification