Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6556913" data-attributes="member: 6696971">One of my favorite subjects.One of the major adversaries for running interesting, dynamic noncombat conflicts is GM tunnel vision on causal logic and the tight coupling of it to produce, inevitably, narrow outcomes after the resolution mechanics are consulted.  That mental framework rarely yields the situation changing in interesting ways.  As a result, you get subsequent player action declarations of "I diplomance the king HARDER (!)" * or "I climb the tree BETTER (!)" **.  Or you get kings that can't be diplomanced and trees that can't be climbed.  None of which produce particularly compelling play.Alternatively, it might be ruleset driven.  When the nuts and bolts of GM procedures are vague, or without bounds/focused priorities and the resolution mechanics are extremely open-ended or potentially incoherent, you open a gateway to the nether realm of GM force.  Nothing has to come through, but the gate is wide open nonetheless.  As a player who is aware of that gate being open, I would feel pretty insecure about how our play is actually emerging.  GM force wreaks havoc on interesting, dynamic noncombat conflicts because the game's "needle" is demonstrably (at the beginning or over time - contingent upon how proficient the GM is at illusionist GMing and/or how willing the players are to have their role co-opted by GM machination) moved mostly/wholly by GM desire with little to no meaningful input from the players by way of their PCs.  Once this is realized by the players, assuming they care not to be puppets in the GM's grand narrative, action declaration, mechanical resolution, and resultant outcome becomes a practice in tedium.  Historically, noncombat conflict resolution is most vulnerable to this sort of GMing due to the nature of D&D rulesets.  Conversely, combat has been less vulnerable because of the relative robustness, transparency and focus of the action resolution mechanics.* Example:[sblock]See PBP <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?365637-The-Fey-the-Far-and-the-Ugly-Space-In-Between/page10" target="_blank">here</a>.  The prove it right frigging now isn't going to manifest as more words (physical mettle and/or sincerity of the threat leveraged against the king needs to be proven) - eg INTIMIDATE HARDER!  It is going to manifest as an immature aboleth stalker grabbing the king from a ceiling crack and pulling him up with its tentacles (toward his potential demise and ultimate irrelevance).  We shall see how the PCs respond and what comes out of it.  As soon as I can get around to writing my turn up, that is.[/sblock]** Example:[sblock]In a 4e game I ran, the intent behind a PC climbing a tree was to get a vantage on a fleeing marauder, who was heading for a gully/dried riverbed, and snipe them.  The lone PC knew that the base of operations was nearby so if this guy escaped the PC, things would get dicey (the PC had just killed several members of the band).  When she failed her Athletics check, it wasn't "you're a crappy elf and can't climb a tree".  It was "you scale the tree, reaching a vantage to put arrow to string...but as you do so, the figure drops out of sight into a crevice in the hardpan."  Fail forward. Climbing or not climbing a tree or falling and losing meat points isn't interesting and doesn't have to do with the intent of the action.  A dangerous villain momentarily escaping, on the other hand, is an interesting change of the situation and serves to escalate the dramatic tension.  This in turn led to desperate pursuit through a trap-laden cavern that was the back door for the bad guys' underground complex (the discovery of which came in handy later in the game).  The PC ultimately succeeded in the Skill Challenge so a nasty deadfall claimed her clumsy prey right before he could enter the complex proper and alert his comrades.  Interesting, dynamic noncombat conflict resolution as a result.The GMing procedures and the resolution mechanics are robust, focused, clear and transparent so GM force is basically impossible.  Establish stakes > frame the scene > player action declaration > resolve action mechanically and narrate as success with complications or a failure forward with the situation changing dramatically/dynamically at each stage > continue until the resolution framework's win/loss condition is cemented, thus locking in the outcome of the stakes.[/sblock]</blockquote>

Verification