Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5656865" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't see how stating what your PC does to gain an advantage is &quot;playing the GM&quot;. I mean, I can see how in some contexts it might be, but I don't see how it is in general.In a 4e combat, I've drawn some trees on a battlemap. A player asks &quot;Can I use the trees for cover? Can I climb up into the canopy to get enough concealment to use Stealth?&quot;. Or there's some furniture, and a player wants to do something with it - take cover, or make a page 42 attack, or use it to float out of a flooding room (I've had the last come up in play). The game requires the GM to set DCs, to adjudicate actions, to assert authority over these sorts of details of the fiction, all the time. I don't see why Mearls' idea is peculiarly problematic in this respect. (And it could be coupled with a Fate Point mechanic, or something similar, to allow players to assert this sort of control.)I liked your idea of using Love for the Princess to meet the challenges also. So it needn't just be about croutons and 10' poles, or even &quot;stepping on up&quot;. It can be about the willingness of the player to fully commit the PC to the situation.That's kind-of how I run skill challenges (following advice from LostSoul posted on these boards a couple of years ago now). And some combats have that form too. Unless the players work out how their PCs can take cover, or cross the bridge/ravine/water, or open the gate/portal/portcullis, or . . ., then the PCs will lose the fight.In some ways, Mearls' suggestion reminds me somewhat of some dice pool mechanics. In those systems, you have no chance of winning if you don't have enough dice to meet the obstacle. So part of what play involves is scrounging for more dice - whether through clever play, or investing the PC more heavily into the situation (spending Fate Points, calling on relationships, raising the &quot;death flag&quot;, etc etc). What makes these systems good or bad is (i) their guidelines and mechanics for scrounging more dice, and (ii) their guidelines and mechanics for resolving failure. Obviously both of these are also crucial for Mearls' system.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5656865, member: 42582"] I don't see how stating what your PC does to gain an advantage is "playing the GM". I mean, I can see how in some contexts it might be, but I don't see how it is in general. In a 4e combat, I've drawn some trees on a battlemap. A player asks "Can I use the trees for cover? Can I climb up into the canopy to get enough concealment to use Stealth?". Or there's some furniture, and a player wants to do something with it - take cover, or make a page 42 attack, or use it to float out of a flooding room (I've had the last come up in play). The game requires the GM to set DCs, to adjudicate actions, to assert authority over these sorts of details of the fiction, all the time. I don't see why Mearls' idea is peculiarly problematic in this respect. (And it could be coupled with a Fate Point mechanic, or something similar, to allow players to assert this sort of control.) I liked your idea of using Love for the Princess to meet the challenges also. So it needn't just be about croutons and 10' poles, or even "stepping on up". It can be about the willingness of the player to fully commit the PC to the situation. That's kind-of how I run skill challenges (following advice from LostSoul posted on these boards a couple of years ago now). And some combats have that form too. Unless the players work out how their PCs can take cover, or cross the bridge/ravine/water, or open the gate/portal/portcullis, or . . ., then the PCs will lose the fight. In some ways, Mearls' suggestion reminds me somewhat of some dice pool mechanics. In those systems, you have no chance of winning if you don't have enough dice to meet the obstacle. So part of what play involves is scrounging for more dice - whether through clever play, or investing the PC more heavily into the situation (spending Fate Points, calling on relationships, raising the "death flag", etc etc). What makes these systems good or bad is (i) their guidelines and mechanics for scrounging more dice, and (ii) their guidelines and mechanics for resolving failure. Obviously both of these are also crucial for Mearls' system. [/QUOTE]

Verification