Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9631907">It isn't a fear of words. You tend to couch in things in terms of intellectual bravery, like people are afraid to see what they are really doing, rather than just understanding people are seeing this stuff differently than you. To me this is just too binary. I think you could describe it as prompting, but I think that is also an incredibly limiting because a GM isn't a computer program and isn't a dog responding to a dinner bell. I see it more as a conversation. And conversations are much more organic than "players prompt the GM-GM decides what happens". I don't like this idea that we are reducing human interaction to 'prompts'. It just doesn't work or resonate with me at all. In any way. I wouldn't say that. I would say, very noncommittally, that the GM -Decides how to resolve the question about the camera (this could be arrived at by simply deciding, but he could refer to a percentile roll or other mechanic, incorporate skill rolls from the NPCs involved (for instance if stealth and tech skills from either are in any way relevant he might use those or at the very least compare scores: obviously depends greatly on the system). He could even put it to a vote. Even if the goal is to be as objective as possible about, and it isn't always the goal, there are lots of ways it could be resolved that don't just include "the GM decides". I personally wouldn't object to a GM simply saying "yes there was a camera there)-Again this would be the same as above. The GM might simply decide, but he could draw on any number of methods to make this determination -Again, this would be the same as above. Like I said, it is a gray area. And we are covering a broad range of styles and systems. So this isn't necessarily the case. Some groups may be fine, because 90 of material is objectively connected to prep, opening these 10 percent of cases to being more dramatic or exciting (they just wouldn't want to contradict prep). But I think most would be guided by the prep material and anything that logically flows from the prep material (the prep isn't static once the game starts and all the pieces are moving so it is really about what the prep is modeling) Yes this is always a possibility. I think the results won't be totally random though. I imagine if you had 20 GMs handling the exact same situation, it would be more like 70% say Y, 20% say X, 10% say Z. If you put a gun to my head I would quibble with his description. I don;t think they are adding a clue, I do think they are discovering a clue that the GM didnt' think of but logically is one that might exist based on the objective details of the mystery (but this is pedantic phrasing and I think "players add a new clue" is just another way of expressing thisI think you are minimizing how important the players choices are here though. Yes you need the GM to facilitate play. By the players being able to probe this territory and have the GM form a ruling to accommodate it is part of what makes RPGs so boundless. Now that said, we aren't arguing over whether this form of play is boundless, railroaded or fiat. We are just talking about whether an objective mystery is being solved. So I feel like we have stumbled into a classic debate about GM styles again The GM is facilitating play with his rulings. When you say "everything is up to the GM" it sounds kind of arbitrary and like there isn't any give and take. But the players asking "was there a security camera" expands the world they are inhabiting because the GM is empowered to go beyond the rules and beyond the prep to formulate an answer I doubt [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] meant they were literally materializing a clue. I think he fully understood the GM could say "No, no cameras". But his point is players can probe and the GM can go beyond both system and prepped material to accommodate that. So I think both extremes here are kind of not helpful (No the players don't make the clues, but also no the GM simply doesn't author everything"). The players have full control of their characters, and the players actions and their out of character questions are things that that will help expand what is going on in the scenario and in the setting. The players do have power here I don't think any of us are in denial about how much the GM decides. In these conversations we have come down largely on teh side of giving the GM the power to make the kinds of rulings and decisions we are talking about. But I do think you tend to minimize how much power the players have in this arrangement (and how much power they gain when a GM is doing this well). Again, this was the first thing I noticed when I played an RPG, how your declared actions could just rip through the scenery and suddenly things come alive. I am not saying this is your experience or that you have to play this way, or that all RPGs should play this (as I said earlier, Hillfolk doesn't play this way but I really like that game). But one of the things that makes me so passionate about playing, running and designing games, is the dynamic I just mentioned (and I don't think reducing that to "The GM decides" captures what it is</blockquote>

Verification