Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 8737461" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I was demonstrating the flexibility of player goal setting. Given a corrupt monarch, you might well decide to depose them, and the game will continue in that state until it's achieved.Ah! Finally we get somewhere. The GM absolutely is not deciding the number of checks necessary to resolve the situation, they have decided the situation. Ideally, they aren't even deciding that, they're elucidating an existing world-state as it becomes relevant to the players. The river's width does not vary in reaction to the attempt actions to cross it, and decision making on how to tackle it is updated action by action, as the players ask for more information. The GM isn't making ad hoc decisions about the number of checks or their difficulty, those are intrinsic to the actions the players attempt, and is instead describing the state of the world they see in front of them. I suppose a particularly dedicated GM could spend the necessary hours mapping out literally every action players have access to and the second order consequences of what other actions become available after the first set is applied if they really did want to decide the precise number of checks necessary, but I would contend that's both wasteful and not generally desirable. The whole point is that a player will try to most efficiently get past whatever obstacle exists.And whether something in the game state even is an obstacle will be determined by that player goal setting above. The river's existence may have no bearing on their goals. It would be amusing to see that particularly determined GM's face after calculating there is no way to cross a river for less than 3 skill checks and a spell slot, only for the players to decide they'd rather travel upstream to the nearest bridge, so they can forage in the forest for the extra days of travel.</blockquote>

Verification