Yep — I would paraphrase your thought by saying that you consider only the ability to change the fiction a meaningful decision, not the mechanics by which that is achieved. Trying to tie this sidebar back to the main thread, it would be good design then to allow a trap to be overcome by multiple approaches that are narratively different rather than just a choice of skills, which argues strongly in favor of tells?
Mostly correct, except in that first sentence: not
change the fiction...which sounds like it's after-the-fact...but
drive the fiction. I believe the general play loop for RPGs is, or should be:
- The GM describes the environment/situation
- Players declare actions for their characters in response to that environment
- The GM adjudicates the results, which might include a call for dice rolls
TOR (1e) journeys are a mini-game within the game that skips step #2, which is where those "meaningful decisions" take place. When a swollen, frigid river blocks their path, the GM should be asking, "What do you do?" Instead it's "Give me a roll to see if you successfully pass it." There's no point to asking about alternative solutions; the rules of the game do not support that. Not only does this remove player agency, but it makes the description of the river itself irrelevant to the game. The GM could narrate an entirely different obstacle, or skip the narration completely, and nothing else would change.*
All of which parallels the way traps and secret doors are typically handled in D&D and other RPGs. Both are agency-less resource drains on the way to the actual RPGing.
*Maybe that's the litmus test for whether something is an RPG: if stripping away the description, or changing it to neutral terms (e.g., a "pit trap with spikes" becomes just "a trap") has no effect on resolution mechanics, it's not an RPG. Might need a new thread to discuss that....
