Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7636309" data-attributes="member: 16814">Yes, there is good reason -- to allow the player control over what happens on a success.  You may have a different preference, and that's fine, but there is a very good reason.  Coming from the D&D mindset, I can easily understand how this doesn't seem workable, but this is based on the thinking that it's the GM's story being uncovered by play.  Even in the sandbox play revolves around discovering the GM's built world.  So, in this, giving player's reign over what success neans doesnt work because outcomes must match the GM's prepared ideas (or, at least, be compatible with them for some spontenaety).However, in a system where the player has authority over what success neabs, there are no such GM notes, or they are very malleable and shallow.  Play determines where things go.  To balance this, GM's have more control over PCs on a failure; control that is anathema to the weak player authority typified by D&D.Again, I run 5e, 99% by the book.  I have a few bolt-ons (mostly downtime tweaks) but they are very minor.  I understand how 5e works -- that it is premised on thin action declarations, and so don't break the PC wall.  I also exercise the No to some PC actions.  This is how that system works, and so I don't fight it.  Play is about overcoming external dangers while having opportunities to decide who your character is.  But, I do not directly challenge the PC because 5e lacks any way to do this.When I run BitD, though, who your PC is is as much at stake as the score.  I push hard on PCs.  Still mostly choices by players, but the occasional challenge makes for surprises all around the table.</blockquote>

Verification