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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6202572" data-attributes="member: 42582">You really need to let this go. I've answered it twice already, and [MENTION=205]TwoSix[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] at least once each.It doesn't matter whether the chamberlain is a suitable encounter for 1st, 5th or 20th level PCs. Stipulate that aspect of your gameworld however you like. The point is that, in indie play, the PCs will not be framed into a situation in which their players have no resources to make a difference via action resolution. That's it.You seem to think that's a silly way to play - I guess that's your prerogative. But there is no mystery here to unravel. No contradiction to reveal. No bubble to burst. The principle is straightforward: IN INDIE PLAY THE PCs ONLY GET FRAMED INTO SCENES WHERE THEIR PLAYERS HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE VIA ACTIION RESOLUTION.I get that (especially because you haven't given any example of the "many varieties of action" that the PCs might attempt agaist the chamberlain once Charm, Diplomacy, fighting, and Fireball have been shut down). But that tells me nothing about the nature, or feasibility, of indie RPGing. It just tells me that you don't do it. That's probably why you don't have the trouble with spellcasters that someone trying to play 3E/PF in a more indie style would have!The Random House dictionary at dictionary.com gives me this:"Ultimate" = maximum; decisive; conclusive: as in "ultimate authority" or "utlimate weapon".The American Heritage dictionary at freedictionary.com gives me this:"Arbiter" = One chosen or appointed to judge or decide a disputed issue; One who has the power to judge or ordain at will.Putting these together, we have two options for "The GM is the ultimate arbiter of the events in the gameworld."One is what I think [MENTION=17106]Ahnehnois[/MENTION] means:The GM has the conclusive power to judge or ordain, at will, what events occur in the gameworldI hope I've made it clear that I reject this as a general characterisation of GMing, and I personally do not play in this fashion.Another is what I think some other posters might mean:When there is disagreement as to what event might occur in the gameworld, the GM's decision is conclusive of the matter.Indie play literally cannot proceed in this way. Because indie play is premised on the idea that it is the GM's job to create disagreements as to what event might occur in the gameworld - by framing the PCs into scenes where the stakes are high and they (and their players) are far from guaranteed to get what they want - and then the disagreements are resolved via the action resolution mechanics, which tell the group whether the players's intentions are realised, or whether the GM gets to narrate complications that result from failing in the conflict.If the players succeed at action resolution, than an indie GM has no power to dictate an event in the gameworld that does not give effect to that success. Hence the GM's decision as to what might occur in the gameworld is not conclusive. Hence the GM is not the ultimate arbiter of events in the gameworld.I think it's pretty straightforward.If that's how you're using GM force, I guess it is. That's not how I am using GM force, however, which I characterised as the GM supsending the action rseolution rules so as to directly stipulate the content of the fiction.Giving someone what they want is not leading them by a trail of breadcrumbs. It's being led by them.</blockquote>

Verification