Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7518421" data-attributes="member: 6696971">What is on the table is how &quot;player-facing&quot; (or codified/explicit) prospects for martial action declarations vs &quot;GM-mediated&quot; prospects for action declaration affect the table.&nbsp; Personally, my sense is it affects the table as follows:1)&nbsp; In &quot;player-facing&quot; systems, players who play martial characters KNOW FOR CERTAIN (before play ever begins) that (a) their conception of their martial character's thematic portfolio will coherently port from their mind to actual play and (b) they can reliably depend upon being able to change the gamestate and attendant fiction through that archetype manifestation as a result.&nbsp; This is constantly underplayed by detractors of this approach, but it is definitely a thing for both long term players of martial characters who have been denied this in GM-mediated play (or at least rendered less secure) and in new players who look at their player counterparts who choose spellcasters and merely by din of doing so KNOW FOR CERTAIN (before play ever begins) that (a) and (b) will be realized because of the nature of D&amp;D's supernatural-effect-by-fiat (I cast x spell vs some form of possible misadventure to spellcast because dice are rolled) inherent to spellcasting PCs.Fundamentally, in GM-mediated action resolution you're choosing to assume a less secure mental framework when you choose a martial character vs a spellcaster character (both in the ability to positively/profoundly change the gamestate via action declaration and in the reliability of the conception of your archetype being realized through play).2)&nbsp; GM mental overhead and table handling time.&nbsp; Broadly, player-facing mechanics decrease my (as GM) mental overhead and decrease table handling time as we don't have to engage in some form of parlay/clarification-through-conversation in order to resolve my personal mediation of any given action resolution.They also decrease my control over the fiction and my related ability to apply force (covertly or overtly) in order to dictate outcomes, which is a lovely side-effect!&nbsp; In-so-doing, they increase all player autonomy (creating greater parity in the stressload-by-way-of-insecurity that players of martial characters must endure in heavily GM-mediated systems) over the fiction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 7518421, member: 6696971"] What is on the table is how "player-facing" (or codified/explicit) prospects for martial action declarations vs "GM-mediated" prospects for action declaration affect the table. Personally, my sense is it affects the table as follows: 1) In "player-facing" systems, players who play martial characters KNOW FOR CERTAIN (before play ever begins) that (a) their conception of their martial character's thematic portfolio will coherently port from their mind to actual play and (b) they can reliably depend upon being able to change the gamestate and attendant fiction through that archetype manifestation as a result. This is constantly underplayed by detractors of this approach, but it is definitely a thing for both long term players of martial characters who have been denied this in GM-mediated play (or at least rendered less secure) and in new players who look at their player counterparts who choose spellcasters and merely by din of doing so KNOW FOR CERTAIN (before play ever begins) that (a) and (b) will be realized because of the nature of D&D's supernatural-effect-by-fiat (I cast x spell vs some form of possible misadventure to spellcast because dice are rolled) inherent to spellcasting PCs. Fundamentally, in GM-mediated action resolution you're choosing to assume a less secure mental framework when you choose a martial character vs a spellcaster character (both in the ability to positively/profoundly change the gamestate via action declaration and in the reliability of the conception of your archetype being realized through play). 2) GM mental overhead and table handling time. Broadly, player-facing mechanics decrease my (as GM) mental overhead and decrease table handling time as we don't have to engage in some form of parlay/clarification-through-conversation in order to resolve my personal mediation of any given action resolution. They also decrease my control over the fiction and my related ability to apply force (covertly or overtly) in order to dictate outcomes, which is a lovely side-effect! In-so-doing, they increase all player autonomy (creating greater parity in the stressload-by-way-of-insecurity that players of martial characters must endure in heavily GM-mediated systems) over the fiction. [/QUOTE]

Verification