Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9218643" data-attributes="member: 6785785">Yes, when a player declares an action, there is some goal. The goal of the action is not to try something, the goal is to achieve something. So they declare &quot;I want to climb the wall&quot; and we know the goal is to get to the top of the wall. The DM then has to determine if there's uncertainty and if so, determine a DC and call for a roll. That process is how success or failure is worked out. It's not that both parties are somehow unaware of the process. The player knows a declared action that involves uncertainty will most likely require a roll. That's all negotiation means in this sense. How do we work out X? How do the rules help us to determine the outcome of uncertain events. In the case where someone simply declares that something is true, it's still subject to the rules. Baker addresses this by pointing out that participants are allowed to declare truths in specific cases... the GM very often to convey information about the world (&quot;There's a big chasm before you, with a rickety rope bridge swaying in the wind, running to the far side&quot;) or the players about their characters (&quot;Rolf has a beard and a wild mane of red hair&quot; or &quot;Rolf hails from the northern islands&quot; and so on). That's all still worked out. It's still subject to the rules. It's in the way the game is designed, or it's in the way that the participants have agreed to play it. Neither the GM nor player can simply declare anything at anytime... they're subject to restrictions (though the GM will generally have far fewer than the player). I mean... bringing two or more parties into agreement. All this balking about the word negotiation... I really don't get it. We all know what it means. We can all clearly see it applies.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 9218643, member: 6785785"] Yes, when a player declares an action, there is some goal. The goal of the action is not to try something, the goal is to achieve something. So they declare "I want to climb the wall" and we know the goal is to get to the top of the wall. The DM then has to determine if there's uncertainty and if so, determine a DC and call for a roll. That process is how success or failure is worked out. It's not that both parties are somehow unaware of the process. The player knows a declared action that involves uncertainty will most likely require a roll. That's all negotiation means in this sense. How do we work out X? How do the rules help us to determine the outcome of uncertain events. In the case where someone simply declares that something is true, it's still subject to the rules. Baker addresses this by pointing out that participants are allowed to declare truths in specific cases... the GM very often to convey information about the world ("There's a big chasm before you, with a rickety rope bridge swaying in the wind, running to the far side") or the players about their characters ("Rolf has a beard and a wild mane of red hair" or "Rolf hails from the northern islands" and so on). That's all still worked out. It's still subject to the rules. It's in the way the game is designed, or it's in the way that the participants have agreed to play it. Neither the GM nor player can simply declare anything at anytime... they're subject to restrictions (though the GM will generally have far fewer than the player). I mean... bringing two or more parties into agreement. All this balking about the word negotiation... I really don't get it. We all know what it means. We can all clearly see it applies. [/QUOTE]

Verification