NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6193371" data-attributes="member: 6696971">You won't get an argument from me on this.  This is a good example of a bit of adept, and fair, GMing that inserts some dynamic conflict into the scenario and requires the Magic Jar-using-Wizard to engage the resolution mechanics.  This specific, isolated use isn't GM force.  However, 2 things:1 - Engagement of the resolution mechanics is not an internal conceit inherent to these spells and their individual mechanics.  The engagement with the resolution mechanics must occur externally by the GM in re-framing the scene by either (i) bringing fictional positioning pressure that was not overtly present (and therefore could be accounted for by the Wizard) within the fiction prior or (ii) leveraging a hole in the strategic planning of the Wizard.  There is inherently a lot of contextual, strategic scene-framing and scene-reframing potency in a Wizard's deployment of spells like Magic Jar, Divination lines et al.  As such, a well-played Batman Wizard will work hard to minimize or utterly remove the possibility of (ii) manifesting in play.   If, due to sound strategic planning by the Wizard, a GM cannot bring (ii) to bear the GM then consistently (meaning any frequency beyond anomalous) brings about (i) in order to impose conflict and force the Wizard to engage the resolution mechanics, I submit that table problems will ensue.2 - Much of the problem with 1 above lies in the task resolution system expectations/conceits of 3.x.  When you have a complex, conflict resolution system (such as a Skill Challenge or a "stress system"), engagement of the resolution mechanics is an expectation each step of the way.  For instance, if the challenge requires the movement down a conflict/stress track (from d4 to win at d12) or requires 8 successes before 3 failures, the Wizard is then expecting to have complications imposed upon them within the framework of the complex conflict system.  The same thing applies when the rules for "Mark XP" are when a wizard fails at a conflict or when a complication arises due to a micro-failure in the greater conflict.  The Wizard might be achieving an automatic success (or movement from d4 stress to d6 in his effort to "stress out" the conflict before he himself is "stressed out") by casting the Magic Jar Ritual and then have to engage the resolution mechanics many more times to have "success conditions" for the challenge met.  At that point, a complication such as Larry Lizardman's buddy Louie who has come to relieve him from guard duty would be inevitable, natural and expected.  The Wizard would then engage the resolution mechanics for the Bluff vs (medium or hard) DC or use an Encounter power (such as Suggestion) to sub Arcana for Bluff and then you would have either a Failure Forward or a Success with Complications arising afterward.  3.x doesn't work off of that premise.  Again, the expectation is binary task resolution resolved by causal logic (simulation of process) rather than genre logic within the application of an extended conflict resolution framework.  So, given those system expectations, there is a moving target as to the threshold of when overusage of (i) above becomes GM force and annulment of "player agency"; eg "I deployed my fiat resource with sound strategic use and you're making me engage the resolution mechanics with some contrived Louie character that didn't clearly and presently exist in the shared imaginary space prior...again?..."Again the (i) vs (ii) game turns into Calvinball.</blockquote>

Verification