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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5654276" data-attributes="member: 42582">I mostly agree, but I think the details can matter.In the Burning Wheel, for example, the rules state that the GM is to indicate the consequences of failure before the dice are rolled, so that the player knows what s/he is getting his/her PC into. Of course, those consequences will be specified in light of the situation.In a complex action resolution mechanics (D&D combat, D&D skill challenges, BW duel of wits etc) than the situational constraints on consequences may themselves be products of the action resolution mechanics. For example, if - as part of a skill challenge - a player makes a skilll check that brings it about that some particular NPC is sympathetic to his/her PC, then even if the players overall fail at the skill challenge, the outcome should still respect those successses that the players achieved en route.As I read [MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION]'s posts, the suggesttion is that these sorts of situational constraints upon, and shapings of, consequences are always (or at least overwhelmingly) a matter of GM fiat. My response is that this may be true for some "free narration" approaches to action resolution (although [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] is doing a reasonable job of rebutting any attempt to generalise that thought), but is not true for mechanically structured, "goal/stake"-style action resolution.[MENTION=8835]Janx[/MENTION] appears to concede this in the case of combat, but in my view for the wrong reasons. Janx seems to be saying that combat is "non-illusory" because it is algorithm-governed. But for D&D combat this isn't so. The GM makes all sorts of choices about the disposition and deployment of enemy forces (in my own case, I do this keeping in mind Paul Czege's ideas upthread about putting pressure on the players via their PCs).What does make combat non-illusory is that, assuming the GM follows the action resolution mechanics, then the players' decisions and die rolls matter: if an NPC is reduced to 0 hp, s/he is dead or unconscious. The hit point and damage rules, as written, work to constrain a GM's narration of the outcome of the combat in a completely unhindered fashion. They do so despite falling short of an algorithm.There is no reason in principle why non-combat resolution cannot be mediated via simillarly non-algorithmic-but-constraining mechanics. BW has them. So does HeroWars/Quest. So does 4e. Arguably, so do "free narration" approaches to RPGing, but I'll let ExploderWizard deal with that issue.</blockquote>

Verification