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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 8718991" data-attributes="member: 4937">Without seeing your process of play directly, I can't really have an opinion on it.  It's going to take a lot more description from you about a whole lot of scenarios before I even have a grip on what your process might.  As a guess, I imagine you are pushing fortune to the beginning just as hard as you can to minimize the effect of the proposition and maximize the effect of the fortune, using heavy DM improvisation to justify the fortune retroactively.  That's just a guess.  And that is a valid way to play and have fun with it, but it doesn't get you as far as your extreme position that the game shouldn't be about player skills being tested at all.  It just reduces to some extent the complexity of adjudicating propositions by simplifying it, though it will require good imagination to avoid straining credulity regularly.  On the other hand, that sounds like flat out railroading and playing characters for them.  See my essay on Techniques for Railroading.The point of the game has to do with the aesthetics of the players, that is, what they enjoy about the game.  But it's impossible for the game to not test you if the game has consequences.I had this stance like 30 years ago and it doesn't work.  The problem with trying to not use information you gained OOC is that you can't enter into a state where that information doesn't influence you.  In your case for example, you can't know whether or not if you didn't have that knowledge whether you would have fallen for the trap.  It could be the case that if you didn't know that there was poison on the door knob, you would have still avoided the trap.  So now in fact you are deciding to fall for the trap because you know that  it is a trap, which is still metagaming.  So then, having realized this I decided to start rolling a dice or flipping a coin "to see what my character would do", and that gets us back to my point that if we perfectly divorced player knowledge from the game we would cease to make meaningful choices.  At that point, I stepped back from my assumptions (which were similar to the ones you have now) and started reevaluating things.But that isn't at all incompatible with what I'm telling you.  You aren't refuting my point, you are just adding something tangential to it.You've already admitted that you don't want to abstract the decisions in combat down to a tactics check.  I can't know the full range of things that you're willing to decide are valid tests of player skill until we've talked more but I guarantee you it is a long list.</blockquote>

Verification