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: 6194284" data-attributes="member: 6696971">And to try to get back to some functional discussion.Calvinball is about "changing rules of engagement" and/or "moving goalposts" as Calvin does when he plays games with Hobbes or anyone else.Consider the Wizard in a system that revolves around binary (pass/fail) task resolution to produce either the "win condition" or the "fail condition".  The fail condition is punitive for both the player and the character.  The character may get in deep trouble/die and you (the player) are not rewarded with "Mark XP" on a thematic failure.  Further, it is not a conflict resolution scheme such as D&D HP-driven combat, Skill Challenges with n successes:3 failures or a stress track system whereby you're filling in dots or stepping up stress die until the "stressed out" condition is met.  The resolution of each task is a "mini-game" unto itself.  The GM frames the scene presenting as much granular information, as clear of resolution as possible for the fictional situation that the Wizard is engaging.  Why is this done?  Beyond immersive/mood reasons, it is done so the Wizard player can make as informed a decision as possible when deploying his/her resources toward resolving the task (with punitive consequences) at hand.  If a GM "underframes" a scene (abstract or incomplete information, poor resolution) and then goes "AHAH" (introduces Louie Lizard from thin air to complicate matters) to the player of the Wizard after said player has adequately (or superbly) deployed their resource(s) to resolve the task at hand (which within the Wizard portfolio of resources, this typically involves fiat/circumvention of mundane resolution mechanics)...what happens?  The player feels that the GM has "moved the goalposts", "changed the rules of engagement" (played "Calvinball") in order to arbitrarily (or willfully/forcefully) render the resolved task (the "win condition") unresolved (or "unwon") and still in limbo...still requiring engagement, resolution, framing.  If the GM does this once, it may get a cross-eyed glance or a moment of player consternation.  If a GM continuously does this (while the player is staked to the realities of the above system; binary, process-sim task resolution...loss = punitive for character and player), a cross-eyed glance or a moment of consternation will evolve into brooding dissension.  If the GM properly frames the scene (appropriate granularity of information and clarity of resolution), and the Wizard player is careless, uncalculating, then naturally it is well within the GM's right (actually, it is their duty...not their right) to complicate the Wizard's life with knock-on conflict.  That is not the GM playing "Calvinball".  That is responsible GMing within that system.  The two situations are deeply distinct.  If you punish a properly played, a properly calculating Wizard player with "goal-post moving", with repealing the "win condition" that they have rightly earned with their well deployed spell(s), then I would hope that you would do the same with the fighter; the analogue there being:Fighter player: "I slash across with my sword, cutting a gash, deep into his platemail, a seam of blood reveals itself...I rolled 28 and hit his AC 25..." GM:  "AHAH...but a stray arrow from across the fray flashes in front of the attack at the last second, striking your swordguard and deflecting your blow wide!"Fighter player:  ...<cross-eyed, consternated glance></blockquote>

Verification