Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ourph" data-source="post: 3740288" data-attributes="member: 20239">DM adjudication isn't a feature of the rulebooks or the SIEGE engine it is a feature of the individual DM.&nbsp; Claiming that the mechanical effects are an inherent part of the rules is much different than saying the mechanical effects are product of DM adjudication.&nbsp; See my comments about shared vs. individual experiences above.Perhaps the term &quot;house rule&quot; is getting in the way here.&nbsp; It wasn't the term I used originally, but I have been using it since people who have been responding to me use it.&nbsp; I prefer the term &quot;creative input&quot;.&nbsp; If the mechanical functions are inherent to the rules, they require no creative input.&nbsp; Incorporating the mechanical effects of feats into a C&amp;C game isn't possible without creative input from somewhere other than the rulebooks, be it from the individual players or another game's rules.&nbsp; &quot;DM discretion&quot; is just another term for the process of evaluating and incorporating &quot;creative input&quot; from an outside source.&nbsp; The C&amp;C rules give the DM permission ot use &quot;discretion&quot; what they do not provide is the required &quot;creative input&quot; to mimic the effects of feats in the game.&nbsp; That comes from a source outside the rules.I'm fairly certain I'm not missing any points.&nbsp; I feel that you and Treebore are missing a point I've raised several times, which is that I'm not criticizing C&amp;C for not containing these rules, nor do I care whether C&amp;C provides the same shared experience out of the box for every player.&nbsp; If you believe it doesn't and it shouldn't then we are actually in complete agreement.&nbsp; My objection to Treebore's assertion is that he originally claimed that C&amp;C does provide a shared experience when it comes to covering the mechanical effects of feats in the game.&nbsp; I believe this is false.&nbsp; It's easy to incorporate those things into C&amp;C if the DM decides to do so but it's false to say that the rules of C&amp;C ensure that those elements will be present.Again, &quot;house rule&quot; is probably a loaded term that implies formalized procedures which should be avoided here, because that's not necessarily what I'm talking about.&nbsp; Nevertheless, the mechanical functions of a game are defined by rules.&nbsp; If a DM is using &quot;discretion&quot; to incorporate a mechanical effect that isn't described in the rulebook, he has just created a new rule, even if the process was informal and the rule is only intended to apply for a specific situation.&nbsp; That's why they call it a &quot;ruling&quot; on an issue.&nbsp; I'm not ignoring anything, I completely understand that DM discretion is an inherent part of the SIEGE mechanic (as it is of most mechanics in most games).&nbsp; Nevertheless, it's misleading to extrapolate the effects of DM discretion too far in evaluation of the system.&nbsp; I'll go back to my original example.&nbsp; The BRP system used in Call of Cthulhu relies heavily on GM discretion as well, but it would be misrepresenting the system if I said &quot;characters in Call of Cthulhu can build spaceships just like characters in Traveller&quot;.&nbsp; It's entirely possible, using the base rules and GM discretion, to have a game of Call of Cthulhu where the PCs build spaceships, but implying that the base, core rules of Call of Cthulhu (without significant creative input from some other source) allow characters to build spaceships in the same way that characters in Traveller can build spaceships stretches the bounds of credulity.&nbsp; It is a misleading statement unless it is qualified with the caveat about &quot;significant creative input&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ourph, post: 3740288, member: 20239"] DM adjudication isn't a feature of the rulebooks or the SIEGE engine it is a feature of the individual DM. Claiming that the mechanical effects are an inherent part of the rules is much different than saying the mechanical effects are product of DM adjudication. See my comments about shared vs. individual experiences above. Perhaps the term "house rule" is getting in the way here. It wasn't the term I used originally, but I have been using it since people who have been responding to me use it. I prefer the term "creative input". If the mechanical functions are inherent to the rules, they require no creative input. Incorporating the mechanical effects of feats into a C&C game isn't possible without creative input from somewhere other than the rulebooks, be it from the individual players or another game's rules. "DM discretion" is just another term for the process of evaluating and incorporating "creative input" from an outside source. The C&C rules give the DM permission ot use "discretion" what they do not provide is the required "creative input" to mimic the effects of feats in the game. That comes from a source outside the rules. I'm fairly certain I'm not missing any points. I feel that you and Treebore are missing a point I've raised several times, which is that I'm not criticizing C&C for not containing these rules, nor do I care whether C&C provides the same shared experience out of the box for every player. If you believe it doesn't and it shouldn't then we are actually in complete agreement. My objection to Treebore's assertion is that he originally claimed that C&C [u]does[/u] provide a shared experience when it comes to covering the mechanical effects of feats in the game. I believe this is false. It's easy to incorporate those things into C&C [u]if the DM decides to do so[/u] but it's false to say that the rules of C&C ensure that those elements will be present. Again, "house rule" is probably a loaded term that implies formalized procedures which should be avoided here, because that's not necessarily what I'm talking about. Nevertheless, the mechanical functions of a game are defined by rules. If a DM is using "discretion" to incorporate a mechanical effect that isn't described in the rulebook, he has just created a new rule, even if the process was informal and the rule is only intended to apply for a specific situation. That's why they call it a "ruling" on an issue. I'm not ignoring anything, I completely understand that DM discretion is an inherent part of the SIEGE mechanic (as it is of most mechanics in most games). Nevertheless, it's misleading to extrapolate the effects of DM discretion too far in evaluation of the system. I'll go back to my original example. The BRP system used in Call of Cthulhu relies heavily on GM discretion as well, but it would be misrepresenting the system if I said "characters in Call of Cthulhu can build spaceships just like characters in Traveller". It's entirely possible, using the base rules and GM discretion, to have a game of Call of Cthulhu where the PCs build spaceships, but implying that the base, core rules of Call of Cthulhu (without significant creative input from some other source) allow characters to build spaceships in the same way that characters in Traveller can build spaceships stretches the bounds of credulity. It is a misleading statement unless it is qualified with the caveat about "significant creative input". [/QUOTE]

Verification