Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8940393" data-attributes="member: 42582">Hopefully not to throw too big a spanner into the works - Imaro seems to be describing multiple approaches.So if the player has tastes similar to [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER], than Imaro as GM uses the technique of GM extrapolation from the fiction - both shared fiction about what the PC is doing and (perhaps) what the PC knows about the bouncer, and also fiction that is secret to the GM, such as the bouncer's propensity to take bribes. A check might be also be called for under certain conditions.A different player - the shy, non-orating one - has their action declaration resolved using the procedure for checks set out in the DMG.So the two different players have their action declarations resolved in quite different ways.The effects of this aren't easy to predict, and may not even be easy to observe. It wouldn't be the only example I know of a RPG toggling resolution methods for metagame reasons - eg in classic D&amp;D some combats might not be resolved using the core D&amp;D combat and spell system, but rather a wargame system like Chainmail or Spells &amp; Swords or (later on) Battle System. But what Imaro describes is a bit different because the reason for the change of resolution method is specific to the particular player's inclinations and abilities.Interestingly, I don't think I've ever heard of a D&amp;D game where a player who isn't very confident at wargame-y stuff has their combat actions resolved using a different method from the system of attack and damage rolls and hit point ablation, while the other players who are into that stuff use the standard rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8940393, member: 42582"] Hopefully not to throw too big a spanner into the works - Imaro seems to be describing multiple approaches. So if the player has tastes similar to [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER], than Imaro as GM uses the technique of [i]GM extrapolation from the fiction[/i] - both shared fiction about what the PC is doing and (perhaps) what the PC knows about the bouncer, and also fiction that is secret to the GM, such as the bouncer's propensity to take bribes. A check might be also be called for under certain conditions. A different player - the shy, non-orating one - has their action declaration resolved using the procedure for checks set out in the DMG. So the two different players have their action declarations resolved in quite different ways. The effects of this aren't easy to predict, and may not even be easy to observe. It wouldn't be the only example I know of a RPG toggling resolution methods for metagame reasons - eg in classic D&D some combats might not be resolved using the core D&D combat and spell system, but rather a wargame system like Chainmail or Spells & Swords or (later on) Battle System. But what Imaro describes is a bit different because the reason for the change of resolution method is specific to the particular player's inclinations and abilities. Interestingly, I don't think I've ever heard of a D&D game where a player who isn't very confident at wargame-y stuff has their combat actions resolved using a different method from the system of attack and damage rolls and hit point ablation, while the other players who are into that stuff use the standard rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification