Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7106304" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Well, my assertion was originally based off of what I believed illusionism to be, and by definition anytime a choice is given without at least two predetermined potential outcomes, it meets that definition that I outlined. I'm not sure if that's what others were referring to. But I think there's a general idea that since the DM is instructed to drive the story, they have a greater level of control of the direction of the story, be it by illusionism or railroading, than a more sandbox approach where the players are driving the story more. This could be based more of our perception and understanding based on statements and examples given by you and others.But if the DM had prepared an encounter against orcs, had provided circumstances where you could encounter said orcs, and you went a different direction instead, then his placement of the orcs in this encounter could be illusionism. Likewise, if he loves elves, and decided that you were going to meet elves no matter what you did, it could be illusionism. The thing about illusionism, if done well by the DM, it won't be detected. It's usually the result of the GM having something in mind or prepared ahead of time, and placing it in the game regardless of where you go. If you had skipped searching the homesteads and met the orcs anyway, it might have been illusionism. Of course, it could have just been because the orcs were following you. So the only person that could answer the question as to whether any sort of illusionism occurred would be the DM.Despite what the game is designed to do, anytime a DM has something prepared (paper or in their head) ahead of time can present a potential scenario for illusionism. For the type of illusionism I described (two options presented with only one potential outcome), it's easily avoided by the GM providing a second prepared potential outcome.But I think that in my analysis of that type of illusionism, regardless of whether the DM prepared something ahead of time, or the DM didn't prepare anything before the choice was made, the end state is the same: An option was presented, an outcome occurred, but the second potential outcome remains unauthored. The quality of the outcome may differ, but the end state is the same. The road chosen is authored, the road not chosen is not.Are you saying that opposed checks wouldn't work smoothly, or that D&D doesn't have them? I'm not sure what you mean by an Instinct to interpose yourself, I think that in any D&D scenario it's a natural instinct of the players, much less the characters, to prevent the wizard from being attacked directly.I don't see how the BW rules handles those things you've pointed out more smoothly, in my campaign the fiction would have flowed in the same way, just different rules to engage.As for Cortex Fantasy, the players establishing, via asset creation? I don't quite understand. In D&D the players would ask what the murals show, and the DM would answer. This could be predetermined, could be made up on the fly. In most cases, murals on the wall of a dungeon would likely provide some information of some sort regarding the dungeon, or at least the inhabitants that created them.Bluffing the dark elven NPC, not a problem. Again, I don't understand the mechanic of expending a GM resource to have the Crypt Thing teleport them. Are you saying this can only happen if the DM has earned some sort of resource to do so. Or to put it a different way, the Crypt Thing, within the world, can't use it's primary ability otherwise?See, in none of the descriptions you or others have given have really illustrated anything you can do in one of those games that I can't do in D&D. My goal for D&D is for the players to write their own story, with my providing input via the setting and the NPCs/monsters, etc. I have some ability to control where things go (what I tell them or neglect to tell them, direct actions against the characters by the NPCs, etc.). What I'm not interested in is "playing a game."That is, I'm not looking for a ruleset that encourages action on the part of the players or the DM. I don't like systems that restrict the options of the DM by rule of the game, rather than what's going on in the world. If my Crypt Thing can't use their primary ability because the mystical DM in the sky hasn't earned (or already used) his action points, then that's probably not a game I want to play. Games like that are multi-layered - there's the story and action within the fiction, and then there's the game outside the game, how can I maneuver things so I can get another action point, or whatever.Thinks like the flat answer below, "you fail to pick the lock." What's wrong with that? Why do I have to introduce another complication? Why not let the players/characters figure out what to do if Plan A failed? I'm not opposed, and actually prefer systems, that allow degrees of success/failure, so that all of those options are available - you just fail, to it takes more time, to catastrophic failure. But I also prefer the system to allow the DM to adjudicate the system and determine that there really isn't catastrophic failure to be had here.As of yet, I can't think of any scenario that a story now game can produce that I can't do in D&D. On the other hand, by your own assertion, there seems to be lots of things that they can't do that D&D can. I'm not concerned about whether you want to do them, only that you can. You may not want to run or play a standard dungeon crawl scenario. But there are plenty of people that do want to. And from what you're saying, if that's what they want, then BW isn't the right system for them.I'm not sure that's really true, but it's the sense I get. And really, if that's not true, then I think that it would be importantly to show that that's not the case to better promote the game.Most of your objections seem to be about what you want or don't want within the fiction of the game. They are objections to the content of the game. The fiction. If that's the case, then don't include them.My objections tend to be about how events, actions and the fiction of the game occurs and is introduced. And usually my objections are about restrictions or prescribed approaches that require a certain approach. I expect that a human being will act in much the same manner as a human being in our world. Yes, the circumstances often change what we do. And that's part of what I enjoy exploring in an RPG - how would that character act in a difficult situation.What I don't like are rules that limit those options, whether it's the scene, the actions, the DM's options, whatever. I want the rules to be as transparent as possible. One mentality that the rules sometimes give rise to in D&D is, "it's OK if he dies, we'll just resurrect him." That's an example of how the rules changed the fiction, or allowed a change in the fiction by player interpretation. A DM made a post complaining that when he attempted a classic scene: the villain held a knife to a villager's throat, that the players actually debated (and ultimately chose) to let the NPC "kill" the villager, they could prevail and then save the villager, even though he just had his throat cut. So a rule that tells the DM to increase the tension, and ramp up the conflict, and introduce complications are instructions that are telling me what to put into the fiction. In other words, they are limiting my options.I'm also a big proponent for changing rules you don't like. Yes, you have to work at it sometimes (because changing one thing can often have impacts elsewhere). So if I was to run something like BW on a regular basis, I'd do the same thing. And I see dice rolls an an interruption of play. They pull you out of the game world, out of character, and interrupt the immersion within the game. They are a necessary evil, although they do add their own dimension to the game that can provide some benefit. But I wouldn't call them the heart of play for us. The story and the characters are the heart of play. We don't sit down at the table to roll dice, even though we roll quite a bit. If that was the heart of play, then we'd be playing a dice game.But see, that's where I think you misunderstand what [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and I are trying to explain. We don't insert irrelevant stuff. We describe what's there. We can't decide for the players or the characters what is important, only they can. Rules that instruct the DM to "drive toward conflict," "go to the action," etc. are giving the DM the instruction to choose what's important to him, based on what he thinks is important to the players and the characters. My preferred approach (and I think [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION]'s among others) is for the DM to focus on what's important to the setting and the NPCs, and let the players truly have full control of what's important to them.My question was really whether your check could force a specific action/reaction from another PC. Something that is generally frowned upon in game design, and actively hated by many players. All this stuff about context for meaningful choice and making your horse (part of your gear) an element in the situation is to me, irrelevant. I don't need rules to tell me as a player to communicate to my fellow companions a plan I have, and if we have an opportunity to gain an advantage or an escape on our horses, then that's an obvious choice. I commented on initiative because I'm running D&D. The fact that I don't use initiative is an important distinction to make because it changes my description of the action substantially from the D&D rules.It's also a perfect example of how I don't like rules that drive the action, instead of supporting it. Initiative is supposed to (in theory) address the question of who resolves their action first (who hits first). But in the D&D combat system it does much more than that. You can move 30 feet (sometimes more), take your full action, and sometimes a bonus action, before anybody else gets to move. What's more, since usually everybody knows the initiative order, they can take advantage of this rule construct that doesn't exist in the game world itself. They can do so by planning their attacks around the initiative order and maximize their group attacks as well - all while the opponents are seemingly frozen in time. No matter how much somebody tries to explain that's not what happens - it is. And this sounds an awful lot like the Contest rules for ability checks in D&D. It's a mechanical rule. It doesn't drive toward conflict - it's just resolving who resolves their action first. If you fail (or know that you are likely to fail) then you do something else. I don't see any reason to make it more than that.Huh? A passive check is a "say yes" if the passive skill is high enough to beat the DC. Otherwise you have to roll the dice. How is this not consistent with "say yes or roll the dice?"A passive skill also doesn't require an action. So in combat you can choose to use your action to give yourself a better chance at success (such as Stealth or Search) by making an active check instead of relying on your passive skill.</blockquote>

Verification