Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7742237" data-attributes="member: 996">He may not have been advocating it, but, that was comparable to the method Elfcrusher outlined.  There is a secret roll (or DC), if the player beats a lower, arbitrary DC, he's told something up and asked to make a decision, the decision has no impact on the result, which is determined by the secret roll (or, I added, just as easily by the DM, arbitrarily, it makes no difference to the player's experience, either way).And, no, it's not bad RPGing, it's just a different, really rather common/classic style.  I guess I'll advocate for it, as I have for 'illusionism' in the past.  It's a legitimate way to run a game, to get behind the screen and use misdirection to provide a great, even 'immersive,' play experience, like a stage magician entertaining his audience with 'illusions.' It adds a sense of fair play, tension, fate, etc.  In Elfscrusher's example, it actually determines the result, but that fact is hidden from the player, who is instead allowed to believe that had he made a correct choice he could have avoided the trap. Coming up with good riddles is not always easy, and gauging the difficulty of a riddle is really iffy.  A player can be befuddled by something you think is simple, or blurt out the answer to something you thought would be hard before you even finish it - and it in no way reflects the character.  Even if you do run a riddle in a skill challenge or similar format that takes several cycles of checks, it's not going to add a lot to the experience if you leave it completely abstract.  To really make it work, you'd have to come up with a genuinely good riddle or puzzle that can be solved incrementally, so you can see progress, successive checks fill in more of the picture, the players may or may not figure it out before it's completed, so either there's some level of tension to see if the characters will figure it out, or to see what the correct solution is.  So, really, much like watching characters in a story trying to solve a puzzle.   Nod.  But, at least when he does use a power, it displays an effect consistent with the concept.  You can be a great tactician, but fight for the wrong side or choose the wrong battle for an emotional reason or because of a personal blindspot, tragic flaw, or whatever.    If the game is done well, the in-fiction capabilities shouldn't be compromised by player system mastery/player-skill or lack thereof.  The PC may succeed or fail (to the victory conditions of the game) based on game-play decisions made by the player, but he'll succeed or fail in character, and modeled true to concept.</blockquote>

Verification