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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3139898" data-attributes="member: 6777">If all that's at stake is, "Do I somersault over my enemy?", then, yes, there's not much difference. Once you're using the full-on combat rules in BW, you are literally resolving whether you hit, whether you disarm, how severe a wound, etc.However, stakes in conflict-based games are often wider in scope, especially when we're not just talking about a physical feat. E.g., in the sci-fi version of BW, Burning Empires, you can be playing out an entire military action between two armies, blow-by-blow. However, what you're resolving usually isn't, "Do I kill more of his troops than he kills of mine?" You're more likely resolving, "Do we take over the prison complex?" or "Do we get the enemy to surrender the Ultimax Device?"In a smaller-scale fight in BW, you might be resolving whether the Black Knight surrenders the princess. By winning the fight (blow-by-blow, wound-by-wound), you're working towards those stakes. In the equivalent D&D battle, you can whittle down his hit points all you want, but short of killing him so that he has no say in the matter, it's the DM who ultimately decides if your overall goal comes to pass.Well, in D&D, yes. I wouldn't be all that nuts about being forced into a course of action in order to serve the story, but I can't, by the rules, do anything to stop you.If the adventure presupposes that the PCs have been captured, you'd probably be better off simply starting after the fact. "Okay, you're all sitting in a jail cell when..."Some might call this fiat; I'd call it scene-framing or situation-building. For me, it would only be fiat if I'm presented with a false choice during the adventure, i.e., it seems like I can avoid being captured, but the DM is going to simply make that outcome occur no matter what I do. That doesn't seem very fun to me.I don't consider improvisation and fiat the same thing, though. Take the jumping on a roc example. Even if the DM has to make an ad-hoc ruling because there are no rules for roc-jumping, as long as the player has input, it's not fiat, by my definition.Fiat: "You fail." or "You succeed."Improv: "Hmm... Since there are no rules, how about you make a DC10 Jump to determine if you're making a controlled descent. Then, give me a melee touch attack, with a -4 if you don't make the Jump check. If you biff that, well, you're falling."In the former example, I have no say whatsoever. In the latter, it's ultimately me and my character's stats that make the determination. For me, that's a lot more fun.We'll have to agree to disagree, then.What if the rules consisted solely of: "Roll a d20. If it's high, something good will happen. Otherwise, something bad will happen. The DM makes the determination." That game is going to live or die by the DM. If you don't like what the DM declares, you're totally hosed. Start adding on rules that guide the determination and share the input around the table, and your hose-potential starts to drop.</blockquote>

Verification