Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6576507" data-attributes="member: 42582">In Gyagxian AD&D, yes - but look at the sorts of activities for which time is defined: spell research, overland travel, healing (defined in terms of days) and then dungeon exploration (defined in terms of 10-minute turns and to a lesser extent in terms of 1-minute rounds). Note also that these are defined - they don't rely simply on GM interpolation.There is no discussion of time in the context of performing mechanically unspecified rituals (like sacrifices by cultists in temples), or for making one's way through a market square. Or for eating lunch, or visiting a friend's house, or making an address to the Senate. Or for tilling a field. (Though it does discuss time required to mine dungeons and build castles.)Gygaxian AD&D has a relatively narrow focus of activity. Once you branch out into other subject matters, it doesn't really have robust support.My contention is that you've got this the wrong way round. Because they're codified, they're robust. The other times could be codified - there is no reason that searching a room for secret doors can be codified (see Gygax's DMG) but eating lunch at a tavern can't be. It's just that in Gygax's game searching for secret doors mattered while dining at taverns didn't.But in the absence of codification - which, for the sorts of activities that many D&D games deal with, would be an immense task - the robustness isn't there. And without that robust support, time does not remain a meaningful player resource. It turns into mere colour.It need not be about the GM "trying" to invalidate; it may just be that that is what the GM is doing, whether s/he wants to or not. At a certain point, no amount of fairness or neutrality obviates the fact that it is the GM's choice that is the dominant concern in respect of the fiction.For instance, the PCs have an hour to rescue the prisoners, and have to cross Greyhawk on foot to do so. How long does it take? Do they get stuck in a crowded market place? Do they get detained by thugs, or guards, or bump into friends who want to chat or old enemies who want to glower? All this is much like my example of the PC in prison upthread - neutrality does not really come into it, as there is nothing neutral about deciding one way or another in respect of these things. And what random table is going to do the job?I don't understand. What is the relationship between freedom of action declaration and resolving something as a skill challenge?The decision about using a skill challenge is about pacing, stakes, etc. It is not about the subject-matter of the action. I've used skill challenges to resolve travel, bargaining, befriending, crafting, and other sorts of things I've probably forgotten. If there's a player (and PC) goal, and potential obstacles in the way, then it can be resolved as a skill challenge, whatever the details of the action resolution.I'm not sure what you mean by a level-appropriate outcome: generally the fictional stakes for action resolution will be established (explicitly or implicitly) as part of framing the declaration of action and then adjudicating the outcome. There are fiction constraints and system constraints.For instance, in all versions of D&D I'm familiar with, the player of a 1st level human PC can't just declare "I flap my arms and fly to the moon", because that is inconsistent with the agreed-upon backstory (humans don't have wings and can't fly by flapping their arms); nor can that player declare "I kill him with my sword!" - rather, they have to roll attack dice, then (if they hit) damage dice, and only if hit points are reduced to zero is the opponent reduced to zero hp. (In other words - there is no difference between "I kill him with my sword!" and "I attack him with my sword!" as action declarations. This is not true in all RPGs - eg it's not true in Burning Wheel. And I think it's not true in [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s game.)Do players want systems for resolution? Presumably some do - those who play games with robust systems - and some don't - those who play games where GM decision-making is more important than mechanical system in determining outcomes. And then there are some who want to pretend they are using systems but are really relying on GM overrides - like the example [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION] posted upthread!As to whether there is a correlation between robust systems and player empowerment - that is my general experience, and it also seems to me to be borne out by the common labelling of robust systems as based around 'player entitlement' or rules-lawyering/munchkinism. But even if there is such a correlation, perhaps it is not universal. I can't say that there was never a player who became disempowered by having transparent resolution mechanics to deploy.For me, the biggest question is what determines whether or not the GM agrees.Then there are micro-questions, like the sort [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] raised upthread (in relation to "rulings not rules"): is it my job as GM to single-handedly make every decision, from first principles, about what new content may or may not be introduced into the fiction? Or is it the role of the system to carry a lot of that load? As a GM I prefer a game where the system carries a lot of that load - partly because it is less work for me, partly because it means I get to act as a game referee rather than as sole author (I enjoy the former role more than the latter), partly because I get to be as surprised as the players at what comes next.In 4e, I've found that the approach to resolution actually straddles your two options: the fictional stakes are free-form, negotiated between players and GM in light of shared genre understandings, thematic flavour of PC build choices, etc; but the determination of whether or not those stakes are actually realised is handled via system.</blockquote>

Verification