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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9847355" data-attributes="member: 7025508">Yes! This is exactly where I was getting at! Like if we don't want the game just be the GM leading the players along a story, then there must be some constraints. In trad approach they come largely from the prep. If the prep say says that there is trap in the treasure chest and there is a key in the flower pot then that's where they are. But if that is not predetermined, then it is better if there is something more concrete than the GM just makes it up on the spot. Like that of course can work and some of it always is present, but all of the game is just that and it applies to important decision points as well, then it can get pretty GM-storytimey. And personally as GM prefer to have more constraints and structure. So then we need some sort of mechanics, that tell the GM when to say that good or bad stuff happens, even if they invented the specific nature of it on the spot. However, one of my issues with many implementations of such is that the acausality of consequences leads to weird incentives where the player and character decision spaces diverge. Like for example if the presence of a trap on a thing can be generated as consequence for poor investigation roll or some such, then a poor investigator should never examine things first, as their inaptitude has a high chance quantum collapsing the situation into unfavourable one, even though from the perspective of the characters this makes no sense. And this is probably me overthinking things, and if this sort of thing happens just occasionally it might not be that noticeable in actual play, but I am the sort of person who is rather perceptive about such structures so it bugs me somewhat.</blockquote>

Verification