Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
King Lear is just English words put in order: Expertise, Knowledge, and RPGs
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7932187" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>So while I generally agree with your framework and your description of the framework indicates you are following along, I think you are focusing on a very different issue than I've so far discussed.</p><p></p><p>Yes, it is true that when the rules leave open to the GM to determine what is an "easy" or what is a "difficult" challenge, that there is a table specific process for determining what actions goes into what categories. And yes, it is true that systems can offer insufficient guidelines to make clear to the table what the designer expected the GM to rule, which can cause a problem of play where different participants have widely different expectations about rules are going to be applied to a proposition.</p><p></p><p>But while that's all important process of play topics, that wasn't really where I was going with my example. My point was even more basic "<em>I try to talk my way past the guard by flashing some calf and giving him the bedroom eyes</em>." can fall afoul of an unspoken proposition filter that renders it an invalid attempt to push the button.</p><p></p><p>That is to say, the result of the proposition might not be "Pass" or "Fail" but "Syntax Error". In this case, the proposition actually would generate "Syntax Error" at my table. The player indicated a desire to "talk" but didn't actually put any words in the mouth of his character. So while the player usefully gives me some indication of his character's fictional positioning with respect to body language, this proposition would tend to yield the response, "What do you say to the guard?" And only after the player provided the full fictional positioning, would the proposition be validated and the dice rolled to determine success.</p><p></p><p>Along these lines, there are also processes of play around non-proposition declarations, or what I call "calls". Are calls allowed and if they are allowed, which ones are legal? For example, different tables might declare all of the following allowable or none of the following allowable, or some combination thereof:</p><p></p><p>a) Player: "What is the guard wearing?" </p><p>b) Player: "Can I use my knowledge of Heraldry to determine who the guard works for."</p><p>c) Player: "The guard is wearing the sign of the Sacred Cudgel. As I am an initiate of that Faith, I try give him the secret sign of a fellow initiate in distress."</p><p>d) Player: "Earlier in the day, I put itching powder in the guards clothing."</p><p></p><p>Amazingly, almost all of that can be done as an extra rules process if the table agrees to it. While different systems may explicitly put rules around such calls, or explicitly declare certain sorts of calls invalid, most of them are actually silent on the issue simply because they never considered a call to be a possible part of play. And even those that implicitly assume a call like 'a' asking about the environment are a part of play, they don't really think about them. They just assume everyone knows they can ask the GM for more information or clarification about the setting, even if they aren't declaring an action to do so.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7932187, member: 4937"] So while I generally agree with your framework and your description of the framework indicates you are following along, I think you are focusing on a very different issue than I've so far discussed. Yes, it is true that when the rules leave open to the GM to determine what is an "easy" or what is a "difficult" challenge, that there is a table specific process for determining what actions goes into what categories. And yes, it is true that systems can offer insufficient guidelines to make clear to the table what the designer expected the GM to rule, which can cause a problem of play where different participants have widely different expectations about rules are going to be applied to a proposition. But while that's all important process of play topics, that wasn't really where I was going with my example. My point was even more basic "[I]I try to talk my way past the guard by flashing some calf and giving him the bedroom eyes[/I]." can fall afoul of an unspoken proposition filter that renders it an invalid attempt to push the button. That is to say, the result of the proposition might not be "Pass" or "Fail" but "Syntax Error". In this case, the proposition actually would generate "Syntax Error" at my table. The player indicated a desire to "talk" but didn't actually put any words in the mouth of his character. So while the player usefully gives me some indication of his character's fictional positioning with respect to body language, this proposition would tend to yield the response, "What do you say to the guard?" And only after the player provided the full fictional positioning, would the proposition be validated and the dice rolled to determine success. Along these lines, there are also processes of play around non-proposition declarations, or what I call "calls". Are calls allowed and if they are allowed, which ones are legal? For example, different tables might declare all of the following allowable or none of the following allowable, or some combination thereof: a) Player: "What is the guard wearing?" b) Player: "Can I use my knowledge of Heraldry to determine who the guard works for." c) Player: "The guard is wearing the sign of the Sacred Cudgel. As I am an initiate of that Faith, I try give him the secret sign of a fellow initiate in distress." d) Player: "Earlier in the day, I put itching powder in the guards clothing." Amazingly, almost all of that can be done as an extra rules process if the table agrees to it. While different systems may explicitly put rules around such calls, or explicitly declare certain sorts of calls invalid, most of them are actually silent on the issue simply because they never considered a call to be a possible part of play. And even those that implicitly assume a call like 'a' asking about the environment are a part of play, they don't really think about them. They just assume everyone knows they can ask the GM for more information or clarification about the setting, even if they aren't declaring an action to do so. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
King Lear is just English words put in order: Expertise, Knowledge, and RPGs
Top