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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thefutilist" data-source="post: 9618754" data-attributes="member: 7044566">Ah I've been using it differently. I've been using it to mean GM decisions but especially GM decisions related to the outcome of a stated character intention (or conflict, they're slightly different things).So to go right back to the start. The player sets an alarm with the INTENT of keeping themselves safe from attack.Two GM decisions both extrapolated from back story, effectively resolve the character intent by GM decision. No the alarm does not keep them safe.My re-framing of the initial scenario was.The situation changes due to character action which introduces a new element (a GM decision)A conflict occurs which is resolved unilaterally by the GM (A GM decision). So same as above. Two GM decisions. How much difference that makes depends a lot on the surrounding context.Much of the subsequent discussion was based around the fact that the specifics of the Torch placement may vary and whether it was possible to make that an actually consequential decision given various constraints.To the extent there are sides, I'm broadly on the 'trad' side but if I was to run a game where torch positioning really mattered to the players then I'd want a commensurate amount of prep because of the 'chasm width problem.' One of Pemertons main critiques.[URL unfurl="true"]https://idiomdrottning.org/chasm-width[/URL]Although the conversation, especially what pedantic has said, has changed my mind as to the necessity of such requirements for gamist play.</blockquote>

Verification