Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6566330" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I would say that it more enables rather than encourages.  However, that being said, I've often found that, in AD&D and WW especially(and in other parts of life), enabling (that sort of latitude) is not too terribly far from tacit encouragement.Uh huh <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />Right quick.  I haven't had much time to involve myself here and I've skimmed tons of posts.  This is the best thread we've had on here in some time.  Saelorn, pemerton, Tony Vargas, Aenghus, AbdulAlhazred and several more have done a great job of breaking down illusionism so I hope that is satisfactory.  I'll try to illuminate the various techniques of GMing in the follow-up post that I'm going to do breaking down a conflict I GMed on here (examples linked to in my above post).However, I want to address JC's post right quick in a very broad, system-sense before I move on (and I don't have time to do anymore right now!).[HR][/HR]Alright, so let us take a look at all the component parts here.  I ran a solo game for my S.O. where she basically played an elven female version of a non-diplomancing Aragorn...with a bear companion who is haunted by the memories of her former lives where she failed at this specific mission repeatedly.  Fighter (Slayer) with bow and two-handed swordplay + nature rituals + Iron Resurgence to rouse the spirits of her companions (and herself) jack of all trades and all kinds of skill bonuses everywhere.  Further, as you can see, she is especially proficient in all of the physical rangery stuff (Athletics, Endurance, Heal, Nature, Perception, Stealth) and History.[HR][/HR]Now let us take a look at the DCs of her level and the standard skill challenge mechanics (which I use overtly and rarely, if ever, make any changes...and if I do I'm up front about it).DCs     11    16    23The overwhelming majority of DCs in the game will be medium.  The % medium for SC Complexity below:Complexity 1 = 100 %Complexity 2 = 83.33 %Complexity 3 = 75 % but with 2 Advantages that can make it 100 %Complexity 4 = 70 % but with 4 Advantages etc etcComplexity 5 = 67 % but with 6 advantages etc etcAnd of course, you get 1 Secondary Skill for a + 2 buff (typically) per level of complexity (eg 3 for complexity 3).  A brief look at Terrain Powers and the Stunting advice bulwarks this theme.  The vast majority of DCs in the game will/should be of the Medium DC.  Secondary Skills will be Easy, a stray few Primary Skills will be Hard, and a very few stray Stunts will be Easy or Hard.  But the overwhelming majority of Stunts and Primary Skills will be Medium.  This transparency alone makes character building to archetype (and thus manifesting in play) a cinch and engenders the protagonising of the PC.  If you look at Saerie above, she is automatically (or near it) passing the Easy DC with a vast array of her skills.  On her archetype skills, she is right up against auto-passing (and 75 ish + % success) with them (even before + 2 from SS buffs).  On the very few Hard DCs (which an SS is typically reserved for augmenting), with Athletics/(with + 5 1/enc)/History (Reroll 1/enc)/Nature/Perception, she is passing ~ 60 %ish.   Several others she isn't too far off (and would be right there with SS skill buff).Now clearly the Cha portion of the social skills she will struggle with (but she is still hitting the medium DC, unaugmented, 45 % of the time).  But again, the transparency helps her build to that and understand the implication on the fiction.  Further, it helps me as a GM when I want to put her in a spot (challenge her socially) and we can see what interesting things comes out of it.[HR][/HR]Alright, on to play procedures in noncombat resolution.In a 4e Skill challenge, the GM's job is to:A)  Through conversation with the players, make clear the stakes and goal of the coming confilc and prospective fallout (based on the evolution of the fiction and the stakes)B)  Frame the PCs directly into the conflict in a way that allows them the opportunity to express their PC's protaganism rather than a way that subordinates it.  And this should follow directly from the prior fiction.C)  Make sure the player intent in each action declaration is clearly understood such that the fiction can evolve from the abstraction of intent + implication on stakes rather than process.D)  Using the techniques of (1) success with interesting complications (when the PCs succeed on a Primary Skill)  and (2) fail forward with setbacks/cost (when the PCs fail on a Primary Skill), the GM moves the fiction forward in a dramatic arc, evolving the fiction coherently, until it snowballs into...E)  ...the cementing/locking-in of the outcome of the conflict (success/failure in the overall skill challenge) based on the stakes/goals established in A above.F)  Frame follow-on conflict based on what just happened (or transition and ask the player's questions about intent/plans and then frame).E)  The GM will be using the very few Hard DCs (if there are any) in a way that typically stokes the dramatic embers (and/or seems sensible).  This is certainly negotiable with the players.  The players will then leverage their resources (Secondary Skills, Advantages, Enounter Power buffs/rerolls, etc) to overcome and rise to the occasion.[HR][/HR]Stunting is again very transparent and very simple (thus not really accessible to illusionism).  Its almost universally:If non-attack then...1)  Skill at Medium DC if attack then follow up with...1)  Constult damage expressions and negotiate effect with players from that budget (will be tier-centric) and possible fallout on failure (typically CA UEoYNT).2)  Skill at Medium DC (very, very rarely will it be High or Low)3)  Level + 3 vs NAD or Level + 5 vs AC[HR][/HR]All of that is quite transparent, protagonising such that players can reliably build PCs to archetype, make action declarations where the % chance of success is easily discernible, and the effect/fallout/implications on the fiction is clear beforehand.  Couple that with 4e's array of author/director stance resources that players have at their disposal and there really isn't much, if any, vulnerablility to illusionism.I'll run through that play example next chance I get (hopefully way, way late tonight...time is jamming me up right now).  Hopefully that is coherent and engages the conversation well enough.  Sorry if it is a bunch of wandering crap.  Doing this as quickly as I'm able right now.</blockquote>

Verification