Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 8742456" data-attributes="member: 6690965">A GM can and should attempt to make all decision about the fictional setting without regard to the player's intentions. You're talking as though "this thing cannot be done perfectly" means "therefor, we should do precisely the opposite" follows. Why is it superior that a GM should pick a specific number of obstacles, instead of attempting to determine the situation in absence of the player's input?I don't think the first point much matters, if the alternative is what you're proposing. I'm arguing the game is improved by giving players agency to affect the number of points of interaction it takes to achieve their goals, "success" in SC parlance, you're suggesting that it's better to set that number beforehand, through an arbitrary system instead of leaving it up to human judgement.We can certainly both agree a bad GM can cause havoc in either state, from setting up SCs where they don't belong, making them too complex or not complex enough, or in my paradigm, by arbitrarily adding additional complication to the fictional situation after it's been established, so let's assume a talented one. In that case, my paradigm will increase player agency at least some of the time, even if our poor GM occasionally does slip after a string of successes and decide there really should be another guard patrol in this castle in the heat of the moment.Pretend for a moment that we did have a perfect simulation of a fantasy setting available, to go look at after each declared action, and the goal of our system is emulate that view whenever possible. What will have a higher success rate? A system whereby a human does their best to emulate knowledge of that world, or one where we pick a number ranging ranging from 4-15?I'm fairly willing to concede that if you want to emulate a specific narrative, you can better achieve that by using a closed scene resolution system, because you will have more control over the arc of the action. That's not really relevant to my point about agency, and could very while lie in opposition to the particularly flavor of gameplay enjoyment I'm talking about. I am less interested in having a compelling narrative emerge than in trying routinely to make the best choice in a bunch of strange situations.Players will still find plenty of obstacles to founder on, even if they manage to ignore/obviate a few. If you're looking for the experience of trying to do your best in a fictional world, it's going to be better if that world rewards you for optimal choices.The "deist" bit is important there. The GM is absolutely not in any kind of driver's seat, they aren't advancing "the narrative" in any meaningful way, outside of hopefully setting up an interesting place to be in, with interesting problems to solve and interesting things to care about. I'm not the viking hat guy, I'm just also not the "story" guy here. Narrative is a retrospective view on the events that occurred, not an intentional act of creation by the group sitting at the table.This is entirely intrinsic to the player's goals. If your goal was the save the last native badgerhorse and then it dies, the goal is not longer achievable (or maybe it is, if you've got resurrection magic, it's a fantasy game, you might have pretty extreme actions available).The GM can be quite easily removed from resolution. Actions can just do whatever they say they do, and be absolute descriptors of themselves.No, the description of the world is established by the resolution mechanism. "You jump 30 ft" is quite clear. We know where you started, we know where you landed, we know what kinds of things modify that number from a table of sensible modifiers, it's all self-contained and does not require anyone to adjust the fiction outside of the stated effect. Failure to activate an action (i.e. in the case of skill check with a DC where failure is possible) should be described as part of the action. I imagine for this simple jumping example, you likely jump less far."Overall goals" do not need system specification. Players can just want things, and then take actions to try and make them occur. If I want to be somewhere else, I will go look at the movement rules. If I want to disguise my appearance, I will check the rules for creating an effective disguise, use them to measure its effectiveness, and then use the rules for determining whether a disguise is seen through when the PC interacts with anyone else. Resolution does not need to be less atomic, from those specific actions, players can string together plans and desired specific changes in the world.Really, I think what I'm talking about is not particularly radical. You can just keep the desired outcome in your head, and use it as a guide to determine what action you take next. The whole enjoyment is in picking an effective strategy to make that desired outcome occur.</blockquote>

Verification