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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6577102" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think the gist of the debate is between things like the 4e skill system and SC system where you incorporate the narrative and mechanics in a fairly structured way so that the participants all know how it should go and what constitutes success or failure, vs the unstructured approach of other editions, specifically 5e was referenced. In a 4e SC the argument is that the players are empowered by the fact that the DM follows a recipe. Presumably the players know this recipe and can be more sure that the DM is taking fair account of their agency by following it. The counter-argument was that 4e's system is in some fashion 'too loose' and that only rigid specification of the parameters of the conflict before hand coupled with strict following of those parameters in play is really empowering, because the players presumably are treated fairly by the objective DM who's only function at the table is to run the scenario as written. There was a side aspect to this with JC explaining that in his RPG the rules are simply all-encompassing and cover every situation that comes up, coupled with a procedure by which the players can generate outcomes without the need for the DM to intervene. Some of us showed great skepticism about the viability of this kind of system, but in any case... The concomitant to this was that JC found 4e to be far too imprecise and subject to DM bias. Finally the current bit of the discussion was focusing on the example of the PCs being under time pressure based on a deadline. In the 'AD&D view' the DM would have to come up with this deadline and adjudicate every action of the PCs in terms of their expenditure of time as a resource. Pemerton pointed out that this is fraught with DM judgment as the game can't possibly list the time required to do every trivial thing, and in any case 1000's of unaccountable details like the length of the queue at the hot dog stand are involved, rendering the result essentially DM fiat. Conversely I was just pointing out that in the '4e view' a skill challenge lacks this issue, you can simply count successes and failures based on its procedure and not worry about the absolute numbers. It boils down to a judgment as to which of the two is less subject to DM bias and consequent loss of player agency.</blockquote>

Verification