Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6071027" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Um.... sorry if that offended you. I didn't mean to, and I really don't feel bad when people make judgments about me. I didn't think you were being rude, either. The "revel in it" bit from me was because the irony of it all strikes me in such a way that I get great pleasure from it. I don't, however, think less of you in any way (not that it'd effect your self-worth, nor should it). I do want civil conversation, and I am happy to talk about this while disagreeing.The "revel" thing seems (I stress that word) to have struck a nerve, perhaps, so I'll let it go, though. I meant no offense.Right, and the player is only getting the mechanical authority through the GM. This is unlike powers / basic attacks / etc. I snipped your analogies because (as if often the case with them) I didn't think they were spot on. It'd be like saying computers have "fiat" when they ask you for permission, and can't continue without it. It knows what it wants to do, but without your permission, it can't do it. That's essentially what happens in this scenario (again, unlike powers, basic attacks, etc.).This is brand new information to me. None of this "and permanently change the terrain, making a repeat action impossible" has been explicitly mentioned before, I don't think. If that's the case, it would certainly be "Limited" over "Normal" damage. But, as I said, I don't think that had been mentioned until this point; the kick was to push him into the fire, and I did specifically ask about doing it over again. Though, I do see your hypothetical changed from "wrongfoot him into the fire" to "and the result of knocking into the stewpot and getting the boiling liquid", so I missed that. My fault (see, I can be wrong, and admit it!).Again, I'm not sure this is accurate. I see how you interpreted it this way, but I don't think that's what the text implies, or what they meant, and I touched on why that was.I gotta disagree. You said:This is directed interpreted by you, as the GM. You decided that "wrongfooting him" was based on Reflex (outmaneuvering him) rather than Will (tricking him). You added the keywords (is Weapon always necessary? is Martial?). This is direct interpretation from you as GM. As I said above, this is "the player says what he wants, GM consults guidelines, GM interprets player action via guidelines, GM tells player how it plays out."Yep. And you set that up for him. Which is awesome; page 42 is good, in my opinion, for the type of game I see 4e being. But it most certainly is not player fiat. It relies on "the player says what he wants, GM consults guidelines, GM interprets player action via guidelines, GM tells player how it plays out." That's "mother may I" in a nutshell, in my book (though admittedly sometimes there's no guidelines).No, they can. The player can go through the system himself, and certain terrain aspects are labeled as one-shot only (or the player decides they are). If the player (not you, as GM) said "I'm going to do [everything we talked about, including changing the terrain] since these stunt guidelines say I can" and the rules support that, then you absolutely have a player fiat-based "improvised attacks" system. The GM doesn't get a say; the player has control. And that is the essence of player fiat. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification