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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7591661" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'd strongly disagree with this.  It's just making sure that the character is concretely doing something and having the player tell me what that is.  Gygaxian skilled play is about players beating the puzzle.  I run much more of a narrative game, where player declarations will change the fiction in their favor on a success or against them on a failure.  However, some declarations are so obviously fitting that they succeed.  We can start looking at this by way of a declaration to walk across a room absent of any dangers.  This is not a point at which anyone would ever call for a check of any kind to see if it succeeds.  The goal and approach method just requires that the player put their character into the action in a concrete way -- that they actually declare an action, not a mechanic.  This is contrasted by the method of allowing players to request mechanics without concrete actions.  The actual action declared just has to be reasonable for the goal stated, not precisely tuned to the GM's notes.  Any reasonable action will at least get a check.  Blatantly unreasonable actions might automatically fail.  Very apt actions might automatically succeed.The example of the poisoned doorknob, for instance.  It's been established in the fiction previous that the doorknob is coated in contact poison.  Many possible actions could be taken, and any reasonable action will get at least a check.  But, if you leverage the established fiction (not the GM's secret fiction) well, you might autosucceed.  For instance, if your answer to the poisoned doorknob is to use an axe to chop down the door, there's no check to bypass the poison (although one might be needed to chop down the door, depending).  If you use a cloth to wipe the door down, and your character has training in poisons, then this might also be an automatic success.  If you do not have training in poisons, I'd definitely call for a check.  Or, maybe the player comes up with something very different, like using a decanter of endless water to wash the poison off of the doorknob.  Engaging the established fiction is the key, which Gygaxian skilled play was more about predicting the GM's secret notes by experience of how the GM prepares traps.I write problems down in my prep, not solutions, and rarely even mechanics, preferring to determine these things in play according to checks. I can't predict how the fiction will go, so I don't, and instead prep more generic problems that can be quickly adapted to fit the current fiction when and if needed.  This isn't illusionism because I'm not always going to put my prep in front of the players -- but I will use it if it's warranted.  A more generic prep helps here.  Of course, 5e is a game that expects prep, and many of it's systems do not work well if you try to push too far to the story now methods of play, so it's always a balancing act.  I find that, to run a more reactive game, the level of system mastery must be very high. You must understand how the system balances things over time and be able to place challenges that fit this balance.  This was MUCH easier to do in 4e because it's balance point was the encounter whereas 5e's balance point is the adventuring day.  So, running a game more narrativistly while having to balance across multiple challenges requires a very strong grasp of the system and how it works.  Gygaxian skilled play wasn't concerned with any kind of balance like this.</blockquote>

Verification