Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 6565129" data-attributes="member: 6668292">Thanks for the kind words! Not that I mean that in a touchy feely way...I love youSweet, please point me to those examples when you have them. I'm interested in seeing what you mean in practice.Agreed.I think you lost me already. Unless the rules for the spell were vague in the system, I'd have a problem in both that system and in 4e. And as far as cut-and-dried powers and skills go, that hasn't been my observation or experience. I routinely hear about things like pemerton having players use Twist of Space (I think) to have an NPC teleported out of a mirror they're trapped in or Come And Get It to direct water (I think). And, from personal experience, skills seem anything but quite specific. They have a couple of specific uses (using Heal on a dying companion, or Perception to notice stuff), but outside of that, I am always winging things for how they want to use skills.And that talk I completely agree with. Player empowerment through powers makes total sense. It's transparent, and it's in the hands of the players. That makes sense. It's the rest of the stuff I mentioned that I find cloudy (skill challenges, subjective skill DCs as determined by the GM, stunt feasibility and page 42 being determined by the GM, skill uses outside of what's in the book).Which is awesome! I really enjoy that about 4e. I just want it in stuff outside of combat, too. Because I don't find that stuff all that transparent for players.It's not that it's a hard task, but it's just one more thing that I have to stop and consider. It's another few moments while the players play twenty questions with me ("how hard would it be if I did this? Can I try this? If I did, what DC would it be? Could I do it faster if it was harder? If yes, how much faster?"). I've experienced that when the players go into planning mode, and I'm not a fan of it, honestly. But that's just me. Thank you for taking the time for such thorough replies, so far <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />First, very generally on system.  If nothing else, illusionism GMing is enabled by GM latitude.  Where does this latitude come from in RPGs?  I would say it comes from a few sources working in conjunction:1 - Opacity, incoherency, and/or too much open-endedness with respect to the resolution mechanics.2 - The ruleset being silent, noncommittal, or nebulous on GMing best practices/principles/techniques.  3 - Instead of "first among equals" or "the GM is just another player", the ruleset overtly cites the "It's the GM's game" imperative as the most important and overriding facet of play (eg historical D&D rule 0 and WW's Golden Rule)...and then the ruleset backs it up with 1 and 2.4 - Either the ruleset's designers or the greater culture surrounding the game takes a strident position of metagame aversion at the table.5 - Setting or metaplot primacy rather than theme or player hook/premise primacy.Any thoughts on that before I get go into play examples tomorrow or Saturday?</blockquote>Hmm... thoughts on 1 in regards to 4e. I feel like skill uses ("can I do this?"), stunts ("can I do this?"), skill challenges ("can I do this?"), and subjective skill DCs (possible inconsistency, definitely open-ended) all suffer from your 1. I feel this very strongly after running that 4e game.So maybe you can show me you don't think that's the case (if you do in fact believe that)? Pointing towards addressing that would be very illuminating. You know, it'd clear things up, make them more transparent.I feel you, no worries I love you[/QUOTE]

Verification