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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7923940" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I definitely agree that framing (which is the issue with the dog’s Starting Attitude) and introducing consequences of action resolution (re-framing) are the murkiest areas of Force.If a GM fakes setting a DC (because the entire process is GM-Facing unless the GM announces the DC before the roll) in order to block a move when a player gets a middling result, that is Force. Same goes for a Saving Throw.However, here are my thoughts on framing of the Starting Attitude and why it’s Force:1) The GM wants the move to fail. The players can’t know that for sure but they can only suspect that. We can know though (because we’re making this up so we can look under the hood).2) The GM knows the Ranger has a +0 Charisma check here, so if he goes with Hostile, he nearly ensures a failed move (the Ranger would need a 20, DC 20 for Hostile, to get the dog to accompany her back to camp).This also gets back to “lead storyteller”, “entertainer”, the action resolution being beholden to GM-facing meditation, and absolute GM authority over framing (and with lead storyteller and entertainer as their hat to wear).With those 4 things, framing becomes a very powerful tool for Force.Contrast it with Blades. The GMing ethos is hugely different, setting Position and Effect are transparent, table-facing procedures where conversation is encouraged, and the players are rolling all of the dice.You literally could_not have the above scenario happen in Blades (and the game’s ethos actively pushes back against it).The Position would never be Desperate (Hostile dog) given all of the factors involved. At most it would be Risky (Indifferent dog) but probably Controlled after all of the factors are collated.Finally, a tangent.I think the above is also a very strong example of how this arrangement can make for a difficult go for mundane characters in non-combat conflict resolution (particularly social conflict with characters who aren’t entirely built for it).Consider that this should be an absolute archetypal shtick for a Ranger without Animal Friendship. This should be their wheelhouse.However, they have to overcome 4 things to achieve the win condition of the conflict:1) Interact with the dog in a way that is sufficient to the GM to allow for an Animal Handling check (which should give them advantage over a PC who just has Insight).2) Achieve the AH DC to gain access to an IBF to leverage for Advantage on CHA check or change the dogs Attitude for the CHA check.3) Deal with the GM’s authority over framing (which will dictate the ease or impossibility of the CHA check).4) Make the CHA check.Personally, I would think that a level 2 Ranger should succeed at this social conflict with the dog at a VERY high rate. But due to mismatch of expectations of rules and/or framing handling (even without actual Force), the % chance of success can decrease significantly and/or be turned impossible.It gets worse if you’re just a Survivalist/Outdoorsmen Fighter without Animal Handling.But a spellcaster needs just one failed Saving Throw (and possibly has the means to create Disadvantage on it).[USER=6688277]@Sadras[/USER] , I’ll digest your example afterwhile and give my thoughts.[USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] How about “during a moment of framing and/or action resolution”?</blockquote>

Verification