Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9521753" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm still trying to work out exactly what methodology for running a game you have in mind. I know of multiple in the general neighbourhood, as per the post you're replying to, [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER]'s post, etc.If you don't use the Burning Wheel approach to calling for rolls - ie roll when something meaningful is at stake - then some alternative is needed. It could be "if you do it, you do it" as per Apocalypse World or Dungeon World, but that's a demanding approach for the designer (not the GM, assuming the designer has done their job properly).As best I can tell, you are working with some intuitive notion of action declarations that are resolved mechanically (eg jumping, combat) versus action declarations that are resolved by GM's free narration (talking to people, sneaking around, etc). But I'm not sure where, or why, you're drawing those boundaries.Well Apocalypse World assumes a mainstream approach to the GM's role in establishing the shared fiction. So does Burning Wheel, really. As per what I posted just above, I think you are making assumptions about action resolution rather than GM authority. I mean, Rolemaster is completely traditional/mainstream in how it allocates GM authority, but it still doesn't adhere to your boundary about action resolution (it has mechanical rules for resolving social interaction, and even for resolving the sneaking stuff although they're a lot more wobbly) - so the boundary that you seem to be drawing would not have been intuitive to me even 30 years ago (when most of my RPG play was RM).</blockquote>

Verification