Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6235636" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Intent. To Telegraph or to Withhold; That is the Question.Something very central to the conversations we had in this thread is the question of "intent transparency."  I was recently re-reading my 13th Age book and there is a fine breakdown of the issue there.  I won't abridge nor reproduce it, but rather I'm just going to try to apply it to our conversation on Indie versus non-Indie.1)  First, lets examine the reasoning behind a player withholding intent.  Why would a player withhold their intent from the GM?  What are they hoping to gain or what are they afraid of losing?  In standard exploratory play, a player is seeking a trump card, something that they can either directly leverage or indirectly leverage (by proxy of an owned resource that is to be deployed) to advantage themselves in a situation.  In this scenario, the player is asking a series of leading questions of the GM in order to overtly establish tangible elements of the scene (put them "on the record"), which cannot be negotiated nor retconned once established, in order to "spring a strategic trap" or deploy a power play that solves a problem facing the PC.  If the player is too transparent with their attempt, they may fear that the GM will preempt their strategic power-play by affirming fictional elements that are stridently adverse.  Example:Bob the Wizard is observing Louie Lizardman's sentinel infrastructure; frequency of rotation, patrol routes, etc.  He may be deploying minor Divinations or just scouting via Invisible Flying in order to do so.  Eventually he plans on foolproof Magic Jarring Louie and getting what he came here fore.  He has a plan on what he wants to do, how he is going to do it, and, most importantly, why.  If "why" is known to the GM and the GM understands the scope of the PC's build resources (the "what" and "how"), then the GM has all of the means at his disposal to preempt the strategic power-play by establishing tangible elements of the scene that either render the power play impotent or costly/dangerous to the point of that risk:reward analysis deems the plan illegitimate.  However, if the player properly masks "why" and can continue their line of leading questions until enough fictional elements are made permanent and clear, they can "spring their strategic trap" and feel confident that any subsequent adverse GM-ruling or retcon will be objectively "foul play" to the audience (the other players).  This typically insures the player against adversarial GMing.  In this paradigm, the player has "played skillfully" and will have earned their victory.2)  Now lets examine the reasoning behind a player telegraphing intent or making it wholly transparent.  What advantage do they gain?  In an Indie style paradigm, the advantage is clear and present.  Very generically, the point of play is to (i) immediately and continuously put characters into conflict-charged situations, (ii) say yes to the player's will or roll the dice in order to (iii) find out what happens.  (iv) Rinse and repeat.  What's more, gameplay output is typically derived from a conflict resolution scheme/framework.  1 and 2 are inputs and they deliver the output of 3.  There is no disadvantage to the player for the GM knowing intent.  There is only advantage.  An intent made transparent clearly conveys to the GM what sort of content the player is looking to engage.  So long as the action is genre-credible (eg I'm a priest/peacekeeper in an old Western setting where Demons actually exist...I want to punch smash the ground and make a crevasse...not genre credible) The GM is going to "say yes" or "invoke the resolution mechanics"...no matter what.  Because of this, making intent clear and present actually behooves the player as the GM is now more likely to establish tangible scene elements that are thematically relevant for the player and his PC build rather than less likely.  Ultimately, we're still going to engage the conflict resolution mechanics to "find out what happens."Example:Bob the Wizard is seeking the hidden entrance to the Dragon's Lair.  Bob is thematically a Beguiler.  He addles the mind of foes with various illusions and enchantments, eventually getting where he wants to go or finding out what he wants to know.  He might say something like:  "Swamps are filled with lizard-folk.  I suspect there is a tribe of lizardmen in this swamp that venerate the dragon like a god.  If there is, I'll bet I could "convince" one of them to help us out.  My Nature is more than enough to regularly pass the Hard DC...or maybe I'll use a Ritual and ask the local animals who dwells here."  Boom.  The GM knows what kind of content the player is looking to engage with.  Maybe he riffs off of that and all of a sudden his low-resolution setting has filled out; Lizard-man-cult infested swamp.  Now we have an antagonist and a conflict.  Even if he says yes to that, we're still ultimately going to consult the conflict resolution mechanics to see how the "finding" of the lizard-folk goes and the "convincing" of the lizard-folk goes.  We'll see what happens.  In this paradigm, the player has "played skillfully" and will have earned their victory.</blockquote>

Verification