Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8741101" data-attributes="member: 82106">But that is not what happens. The GM calls for checks. The GM determines what sort of progress is made when a success is achieved (and vice versa). The only time this is going to be completely outside the GM's immediate control is when they decided beforehand, by completely specifying the situation, and now we are in the same situation as an SC! (at best). The player is deciding nothing. I mean, if you are suggesting a very non-classical type of system in which players simply decide for themselves when the situation warrants final success and simply informs the GM of such (OK, I passed a swim check, I've reached the other side of the River Lethe) well, OK I yield the point (but Mr. Czege wants to have a word with you now...)!See, I think the problem is, you are taking one very narrow agenda of play, deciding that a certain system design might not work for it, and declaring it to be a bad design. Yet, at best, you know nothing of how well it works for everyone else who doesn't share that exact agenda. But I find there is another issue, which is the 'unreality factor'. A fantasy world imagined by a GM and/or players (or however its description came about) is a very 'thin' thing. 99.9% of everything is really not defined in the description and is unsettled. Thus nobody can really say what the risks are. Heck, a pretty good hunk of why most RPGs involve dice is the feeling that there are MANY factors that have not been taken into consideration, could not practically be taken into consideration, by the participants, and thus a stochastic mechanism, the dice, is employed to kind of 'fill in'. But even that aside, most plans rely on factors nobody knows about! Is the candle maker friends with the scullery maid? Who knows? I mean, sure, it could theoretically be noted, but nobody fleshes out that level of detail, yet it could be a critical factor, and the GM will have to decide it, on the fly. In a sense there really is nothing BUT 'low myth' play, and the idea that anyone can map out any but the most immediate and proximate causes and consequences of things doesn't hold water. There is no 'plan', there is no spoon, thus I cannot bend the spoon, you get it?No, now they know a way to even-handedly decide. We can get on with the interesting part, what actually is it that we find in this situation?I would not presume that at all, and find the idea that this is the only design which provides 'agency' to be a highly dubious proposition. You would clearly benefit from playing in a game using an RPG and techniques which challenge your assumptions.</blockquote>

Verification