Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6070988" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think this is connected to issues around fictional positioning and adversity.As long as it is the GM and not the player who is in charge of providing adversity to the PCs - and D&amp;D is very traditional in this respect - then there are going to be some aspects of the fictional positioning that are under the GM's rather than the players' control. A simple example - there will be some NPCs whose attitude to the PCs is determined, as least at the outset, by the GM rather than the players.And I think that it follows from this that the GM will have the final say on at least some attempts to leverage fictional positioning into successful action resolution - because it is the GM who has the job of framing the fiction in question as part of that adversity-providing function.In 4e, for instance, the players have authority over their powers and similar abilities - which includes not just class and level specific ones, but the generic abilities described in the combat and skill chapters of the rulebooks. The game, being an RPG, utterly takes for granted that the players can leverage elements of the fiction in other ways too, but gives the GM authority over that because those elements (terrain, etc) are typically introduced for the purpose of providing adversity. (The rules actually have a category of terrain called a &quot;terrain power&quot; which is expressly intended as neutral between adversity and advantage, and the GM is directed by the rules to draw the players' attention to such powers at the start of a combat - which takes such powers out of the realm of &quot;mother may I&quot;.)&nbsp;[MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has interesting views on the relationship between fictional positioning, GM authority and adversity - I wonder if I can draw him in?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6070988, member: 42582"] I think this is connected to issues around fictional positioning and adversity. As long as it is the GM and not the player who is in charge of providing adversity to the PCs - and D&D is very traditional in this respect - then there are going to be some aspects of the fictional positioning that are under the GM's rather than the players' control. A simple example - there will be some NPCs whose attitude to the PCs is determined, as least at the outset, by the GM rather than the players. And I think that it follows from this that the GM will have the final say on at least some attempts to leverage fictional positioning into successful action resolution - because it is the GM who has the job of framing the fiction in question as part of that adversity-providing function. In 4e, for instance, the players have authority over their powers and similar abilities - which includes not just class and level specific ones, but the generic abilities described in the combat and skill chapters of the rulebooks. The game, being an RPG, utterly takes for granted that the players can leverage elements of the fiction in other ways too, but gives the GM authority over that because those elements (terrain, etc) are typically introduced for the purpose of providing adversity. (The rules actually have a category of terrain called a "terrain power" which is expressly intended as neutral between adversity and advantage, and the GM is directed by the rules to draw the players' attention to such powers at the start of a combat - which takes such powers out of the realm of "mother may I".) [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has interesting views on the relationship between fictional positioning, GM authority and adversity - I wonder if I can draw him in? [/QUOTE]

Verification