Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8035326" data-attributes="member: 29398">In fact in both systems those two action declarations are very different from each other.&quot;I look in the box&quot; and &quot;I stab the orc&quot; are the same, in that each identifies an attempted interaction with an already-known piece of the fiction: the box and the orc are each already present.However, &quot;I look in the box for the Crown of Revel&quot; tries to bring in another element, that being the Crown, the presence or absence of which remains yet unknown to the players.&nbsp; In my view, saying the words &quot;for the Crown of Revel&quot; does nothing but add flavour; and while adding flavour is always cool in and of itself it has no other relevance.Put another way, the only mechanically relevant bit of that declaration is &quot;I look in the box&quot;, because the box is all that the PC/player knows to be there. On this declaration, then, the GM resolves the action by saying yes if there's no obstacle to opening the box (and then almost certainly narrates what's inside) or rolls the dice if there's some obstacle to opening the box e.g. it's locked or it's not immediately clear just how the box opens.As everyone seems to agree that part of the GM's job is to set obstacles and challenges (right?&nbsp; We're all agreed on this?), if the GM has no way of knowing where the Crown is ultimately going to be found how can she lay down any obstacles to finding it?&nbsp; How can she set traps, locks, guards, and other assorted challenges if she doesn't know where to put them?&nbsp; How can she set red herrings and misdirections when for all she knows she might in the process unknowingly be steering the PCs right to it?This is what I mean when I say giving players control of setting elements strongly fights against - or even outright prevents - setting consistency.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 8035326, member: 29398"] In fact in both systems those two action declarations are very different from each other. "I look in the box" and "I stab the orc" are the same, in that each identifies an attempted interaction with an already-known piece of the fiction: the box and the orc are each already present. However, "I look in the box for the Crown of Revel" tries to bring in another element, that being the Crown, the presence or absence of which remains yet unknown to the players. In my view, saying the words "for the Crown of Revel" does nothing but add flavour; and while adding flavour is always cool in and of itself it has no other relevance. Put another way, the only mechanically relevant bit of that declaration is "I look in the box", because the box is all that the PC/player knows to be there. On this declaration, then, the GM resolves the action by saying yes if there's no obstacle to opening the box (and then almost certainly narrates what's inside) or rolls the dice if there's some obstacle to opening the box e.g. it's locked or it's not immediately clear just how the box opens. As everyone seems to agree that part of the GM's job is to set obstacles and challenges (right? We're all agreed on this?), if the GM has no way of knowing where the Crown is ultimately going to be found how can she lay down any obstacles to finding it? How can she set traps, locks, guards, and other assorted challenges if she doesn't know where to put them? How can she set red herrings and misdirections when for all she knows she might in the process unknowingly be steering the PCs right to it? This is what I mean when I say giving players control of setting elements strongly fights against - or even outright prevents - setting consistency. [/QUOTE]

Verification