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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5720261" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Exactly. Can't XP.I don't know how I can help you, here. I've been bad at communication recently.No, it's not in a constant state of flux. Yes, you're right, plenty of things aren't fixed until they are observed. Just like every campaign.I might let him, yep. Depends on what guidelines I have in my head. Odds are, it'd come down to a roll or rolls, just like I agreed with pemerton on.I'd make it come down to rolls, probably. I'd allow the players to roll to see if there was a faster route, and if they succeeded on the check, I'd probably let them know whether there was on or not. If there was, then the rolls would probably be easier.No, that's ridiculous, and I feel like that's obvious. There's a huge difference between a town map and a tavern map. That'd be like saying, "the continental map shows everything, and this looks like the most direct route. However, it doesn't show any game or wild vegetation. Can they not gather food?" Of course they can gather food. However, when it comes to the most direct route, the map will give an extremely good indication of what that is.If all there was were bar stools, then of course there would be no chairs. Why would there suddenly be?I agree, which is why I said that.I'll take you up on that bet. I have absolutely no lack of confidence when it comes to running games. I'm at capacity for players right now (I won't run more than six players), but the two newest players left their other groups to play, and I'm stuck GMing because the other players feel intimidated by my GMing and/or have tried and didn't feel like they didn't measure up. Hell, I wrote a chapter in my RPG's book about running a game to get them to try, I've encouraged them to try or encouraged them when they were trying to run a game, and I still end up running the games.I'm not afraid of ever running a poor game. But, hey, I probably would to people who wanted a more narrative approach. Just goes to show my style is crappy to certain people, huh? 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=":)" />I think what we have here is two different definitions. Asking to do something with your character isn't narrative control to me or some others in this thread (as indicated by Nagol's quote at the top of this post). A player creating a shortcut with a high check, however, does have narrative control, and that kind of "warping reality" doesn't work for some groups (I put "warping reality in quotes for a reason... it should be obvious based on the thread I assume you've read). 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=":)" />I felt that he was saying that people were saying it was negative behavior (thus his amusement with the conversation). I probably missed where someone said that people trying to find a shorter path is wrong. Do you know what post that was implied?See, I feel like you can be told "no" and not be railroaded. To be railroaded, there has to be a specific outcome the players are be herded towards. I can make a judgment call without that in mind. I'm playing in an extremely open sandbox-style game. I'm here to play everyone else in the world, and to make judgment calls about the game (and do other things like help the players feel immersed, etc.). I'm not here to screw over the players, nor am I here to help them succeed. I'm just here to impartially give them answers.To that end, when I say "no", it's not so that they're stay on the rails. It's because that's how the world is currently arrayed in my mind, and that's how internal consistency works to me. Perhaps if the game was more focused on storyline, then yes, it's probably closer to staying on the rails. If that's the case, though, I'd expect the villain to adapt, head to a different location, not be caught anyways, etc. There's plenty of ways for someone to railroad if that's what they're going for.Just my perspective on it, as a sandbox GM. 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=":)" />Very much so, in my experience. In my Mutants and Masterminds 2e game, I'll let players blow Hero Points to say, "good thing I remembered to bring [insert exceptionally convenient thing]!" and it's a lot of fun. However, the point of that game when we play is to mimic a cool comic book-like story, not to immerse.In my Children of Arrash game, if a player asked the question of whether or not something is possible, it's so that he knows how he can act in-game. Yes, he's hoping it'll work out for him, but narrative control trumping the internal consistency of the setting would bring the player out of immersion.Two different goals, there.I really don't know who is asking for players not to ask that question. We just disagree on what whether or not that form of "creating content" is narrative control. I sincerely think it isn't at all.I agree. And you can do that by allowing my definition of narrative control, or not. You can allow the checks themselves to modify the game world, or you can just use them to focus the game world enough to answer the question. Two different methods, and neither are objectively wrong. But, people definitely have preferences, or we wouldn't have this thread. 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=":)" />No, you didn't ask that. You asked what was more important: the map, or the tone and ability for characters to be heroic. I said the map, because it doesn't preclude heroic characters, nor does it break internal consistency. Had I chosen "the tone and ability for characters to be heroic," I'd be breaking internal consistency.That's all this entire conversation is. It's not "who's right and who's wrong." If you want to argue about whether or not narrative control for players is objectively right, good luck with that. I won't engage with it, because it's a matter of taste. Preference. That's all.Again, that's a "very high strike rate" (which implies not 100%) and also a way to make characters "less heroic" (their damage getting reduced). It's a different form of game balance, and arguably equally as effective, but it's still stopping a character from doing something outright heroic right now, which seems to be your objection. I don't see how they're different.I'd definitely like a conversation. A discussion. Not an argument. This entire conversation is about what each person prefers, and why. That's a discussion of taste. To that end, all I can do is say, "I don't see it that way, and here's why I think so. Now can you see why my players wouldn't like things the way you do?" Does that make sense? I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm not saying you're playing incorrectly. I'm saying I like playing differently, and why that is.Why is the only way to catch him cutting him off? Why is being defeated disqualify you from being a hero? Let's go over all the heroes we can, and think of one who is never defeated, or who never suffers a setback.I'm thought about it for about one minute, but I'm blank so far. I can't think of one hero who never suffers a setback. Can you think of any? Let me know if you can. I'm assuming there's going to be quite a few if it's enough to justify "heroic actions" in a game, not just one instance.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