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: 6244380" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't really feel the force of "logically".For instance, Burning Wheel's action resolution rules require each declared action to be framed in terms of intent and task. If the check succeeds, the PC succeeds at the task and achieved the players' intent. If the check fails, the GM narrates the consequence, and is encouraged to focus on failure of intent rather than failure of task.Is that illogical?Why should the goal be symmetry? The goal is for an action resolution system that ensures player protagonism driving events without the need for large dollops of GM force. The approach you are suggesting seems to be putting the GM solely in charge of consequences whether the player succeeds or fails on his/her check. Which seems at odds with the goal I just stated, so why would I run my game that way?Once again, I don't really see how these examples of running games in a different style are contributing to our understanding of the particular style under investigation. I would find it more helpful if you explained what you think follows from your examples?Again, this is your logic. It is not the logic that [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] was using. He was using the logic where, on a successful check, the PC gets the player's declared intent and task, and on a failed check the GM gets to narrate consequences, including circumstances that explain why the PC does not get intent (even though perhaps s/he still got task).Of course there is - if the players don't escalate to combat, there will not be combat. In my current 4e game, 5 of the past 6 encounters have been resolved via social means, because the players did not want to fight the people they were dealing with (a diabolist and its dragon mount; the leadership of the shrine of the kuo-toa; Blibdoolpoolp; devils sailing the river Lathan; the death hag keeper of the Worm Bridge over that river). The only combat was one that I as GM initiated, when some kuo-toa ambushed the PCs as they were flying down a tunnel above an Underdark river.If you want to use this, go to town. What you're discovering is that most of your fellow posters don't think this contributes well to epic fantasy fiction. In other words, people aren't objecting on theoretical grounds. They simply find it puerile. Presumably you don't agree, but iIndividual taste is what it is.Again, taste is what it is. If you and those you're playing with find what [MENTION=27570]sheadunne[/MENTION] and [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] did to be in poor taste, you'll probably have fewer negotiations escalate to violence.But these points about taste don't bear upon playstyle as it is being discussed in this thread.I still don't see why you say this. Can you point to a particular example that shows someone "simply picking any skill desired"? As opposed to "decaring an action that engages with the current fictional situation so as to transform it in some desired fashion"?There seems to be confusion here. If someone want to stop Quinn's violence, they need to declare an action. For instance, [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] used an action to try and stop my character (Thurgon) from dealing damage to the Court Mage/Dryad.I tried to, but [MENTION=16586]Campbell[/MENTION] stopped me (by making me run too low on hit points to continue my combat trajectory).To me, this "sameness" is the same sameness as "Nearly all novels have double-digit pages and require the protagonist to suffer in some fashion before achieving a measure of reconciliation" or "Nearly all combat require multiple attack and damage rolls to resolve" or "All roleplaying sessions involve quite a while of sitting around and talking".How is any of this "sameness" objectionable, as opposed to more-or-less constitutive of the activity being undertaken?</blockquote>

Verification