Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6302538" data-attributes="member: 42582">No. I stated that the GM is the one who has the final say on the mechanical framing - is this a skill check, a skill challenge or a combat? (Those being the mechanical options in 4e.)That is not saying that the GM gets to decide whether or not a mechanical ability is appropriate.An additional complexity is if there is confusion or disagreement over fictional positioning - for instance, a player declares a Diplomacy action but, as the GM understands the situation, the relevant NPC/monster is out of earshot. Or the player declares a Diplomacy action, but the words s/he indicates his/her PC is speaking seem intimidatory rather than diplomatic.4e assumes that the GM has ultimate responsibility for managing fictional positioning, but this is not about &quot;authority&quot; or &quot;fiat&quot;. For instance, the player can declare that his/her PC moves closer to the NPC before speaking; or can clarify his/her PC's words to make it plain how they are diplomatic and not intimidatory.There is no basis, in the 4e mechanics, for the GM vetoing a Diplomacy check if the player declares an action for his/her PC which is a speaking of diplomatic words to an NPC.Luckily for me, the ruleset I use doesn't have this sort of problem.In my experience, that point can be generalised. It is possible to design mechanical systems which produce results that are acceptable within play without the need for GM suspension of or fiating of action resolution mechanics. 3E may not be such a system, but it is not the only system out there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6302538, member: 42582"] No. I stated that the GM is the one who has the final say on the mechanical framing - is this a skill check, a skill challenge or a combat? (Those being the mechanical options in 4e.) That is not saying that the GM gets to decide whether or not a mechanical ability is appropriate. An additional complexity is if there is confusion or disagreement over fictional positioning - for instance, a player declares a Diplomacy action but, as the GM understands the situation, the relevant NPC/monster is out of earshot. Or the player declares a Diplomacy action, but the words s/he indicates his/her PC is speaking seem intimidatory rather than diplomatic. 4e assumes that the GM has ultimate responsibility for managing fictional positioning, but this is not about "authority" or "fiat". For instance, the player can declare that his/her PC moves closer to the NPC before speaking; or can clarify his/her PC's words to make it plain how they are diplomatic and not intimidatory. There is no basis, in the 4e mechanics, for the GM vetoing a Diplomacy check if the player declares an action for his/her PC which is a speaking of diplomatic words to an NPC. Luckily for me, the ruleset I use doesn't have this sort of problem. In my experience, that point can be generalised. It is possible to design mechanical systems which produce results that are acceptable within play without the need for GM suspension of or fiating of action resolution mechanics. 3E may not be such a system, but it is not the only system out there. [/QUOTE]

Verification