Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8828686" data-attributes="member: 42582">A riff on your riff.Having magic be &quot;magical&quot;, or not tied down by reference to PC build elements, or a pre-determined &quot;physics of the setting&quot;, doesn't necessarily entail loose magic adjudication. I can make up some weird setting element in 4e D&amp;D, for instance, and have the adjudication be quite straightforward (most likely based around keywords and the skill challenge rules, including the role of improvised use of powers in a skill challenge). Or in the Prince Valiant scenario The Crimson Bull, which one of my players thought had the most magical and engaging treatment of magic in any of his FRPGing, the adjudication - involving dispelling a demon with a blessed dagger - was quite straightforward, because Prince Valiant uses a simple, consistent resolution technique.So for me, at least, this is not a discussion about GM authority in adjudication. It's about GM authority in framing. And there's an argument that the GM's authority in respect of framing should be tied down by reference to an already-defined setting; where that prior definition of setting is done in terms of PC build and related mechanical elements. The GM is still taken to be in charge of that setting definition, though.Where my riff converges with yours is that setting is being prioritised, over colour and situation. What I find a bit frustrating is the apparent insistence that the RPGing roof will fall in if colour or situation are prioritised over setting (and especially over setting approached through the lens of mechanical PC build elements). That's an empirical claim which I know from my own experience is false.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8828686, member: 42582"] A riff on your riff. Having magic be "magical", or not tied down by reference to PC build elements, or a pre-determined "physics of the setting", doesn't necessarily entail loose magic adjudication. I can make up some weird setting element in 4e D&D, for instance, and have the adjudication be quite straightforward (most likely based around keywords and the skill challenge rules, including the role of improvised use of powers in a skill challenge). Or in the Prince Valiant scenario The Crimson Bull, which one of my players thought had the most magical and engaging treatment of magic in any of his FRPGing, the adjudication - involving dispelling a demon with a blessed dagger - was quite straightforward, because Prince Valiant uses a simple, consistent resolution technique. So for me, at least, this is not a discussion about GM authority in adjudication. It's about GM authority in framing. And there's an argument that the GM's authority in respect of framing should be tied down by reference to an already-defined setting; where that prior definition of setting is done in terms of PC build and related mechanical elements. The GM is still taken to be in charge of that setting definition, though. Where my riff converges with yours is that setting is being prioritised, over colour and situation. What I find a bit frustrating is the apparent insistence that the RPGing roof will fall in if colour or situation are prioritised over setting (and especially over setting approached through the lens of mechanical PC build elements). That's an empirical claim which I know from my own experience is false. [/QUOTE]

Verification