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="pemerton" data-source="post: 6238501" data-attributes="member: 42582">The second sentence in this quote is an examle of "secret backstory": backstory - in this case about the comings and goings of the Royal Court - which the GM knows but the players don't, and to which the GM refers to determine the success of actions - in this case, an attempt to gain an audience with the king - that the players have their PCs attempt."Sensible assumptions are made about world-building" is another way of characterising secret backstory: ie information about the contents and disposition of the gameworld which the GM has and the players do not, and by reference to which the GM adjudicates the success of the actions that the players have their PCs attempt.It's not in dispute that the players don't know everything about the gameworld. The relevant issue is the real-world conditions under which that unknown stuff relates to the actions that the players have their PCs attempt.One way is for the players to declare actions for their PCs, for the GM to reference the secret backstory, and on the basis of that to then determine whether or not the declared actions succeed. This is what I described above as "interposition of secret backstory".Whether the secret backstory was worked out in advance by the GM, or worked out on the fly, is important to some playstyles - eg in Gygaxian play the backstory should be worked out in advance, and part of the skill of play in that style is working out the secret backstory. Hence, for instance, all the detection abilities on magic swords in classic D&D. And hence the comparatively narrow scope of play - the dungeon - which makes the discovery of secret backstory by the players reasonably viable. In other playstyles - including what I have called "storyteller" play - it doesn't matter when the GM comes up with the secret backstory, because the players aren't expected to be trying to work it out through skilled play. Rather, it's all about "the story".But another way to determine whether and how the unknown stuff relates to the PCs' actions is to bundle it into the action resolution mechanics. Unless I've misunderstood, this is what [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] is talking about in his couple of posts not far above this one (including the extract I quote below). And it's the default approach of indie play.This all seems consistent with what I said. Rather than looking at changing PC build elements, or action resolution mechanics, you are leaving all the mechanics intact and developing ingame fiction - what I have called "secret backstory" - to determine the outcome of the use of the spell.It need not be. First, according to many in this thread, Charm Person does override free will: it makes the target view the caster as a friend, but within those parameters the target can choose what to do or what to refuse.Second, and more importantly, what does it mean to "override a target's free will"? Charm Person makes a person make choices that s/he otherwise wouldn't make. So does successful diplomacy. One way to boost a Diplomacy skill attempt would be to magically make the target see you as friendlier - ie Charm Person. I think it would be a significant mechanical improvement to the spell to locate it in the same mechanical space as the rest of the interaction rules (which themselves might be rewritten to interface with the Will mechanics).I regard this as a matter of taste and style. The Dying Earth, Burning Wheel and Marvel Heroic RP all have robust rules for PC/NPC parity in influence resolution. Classic D&D and, as far as I know, 3E, have parity in magical influence but not mundane (eg AD&D PCs don't need to check morale - contrast Burning Wheel, where they do).4e defaults to PC immunity to both magical and non-magic influence outside the rather narrow mechanical parameters of its "dominate" effect. This seems to me consistent with its general orientation towards "everyone involved all of the time".It's a bit like PC death. There's nothing wrong with a game like (say) 13th Age which has a default "death flag" rule - the players can always declare a dramatic escape for their PCs, but at the expense of a GM-narrated campaign failure, which means that PCs will only die when the players decide the takes are too high to risk the failure.Whereas in 3E, the default is vulnerability to death unless some sort of special resource is acquired.Good point.The odds would be determined by your more general resolution system. In 4e, for instance, everything else being equal the successsful use of teleport would be an Arcana check against an appropriate DC. For the question of whether or not the destination had been destroyed, it might be History or Streetwise (depending on whether we're talking about recent destruction or destruction long ago).No one is talking about "the same results" in the fiction. We are talking about a comparable capacity to meaningfully influence the gameworld. For long-distance influence that may be via carrier pigeons sending messages to reliable cohorts; or even an ability to resolve a 1500 mile trek with a simple "Trekking" skill check.</blockquote>

Verification