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: 6587822" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Just using your post here as a point of further analysis as you're trying to penetrate where some confusion may persist (and defuse it).  Gonna pop these back in here again right quick.Let us consider <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?429542-The-Best-Thing-from-4E/page97&p=6587344&viewfull=1#post6587344" target="_blank">this</a> conflict again.  1)  The player of Saerie has made a thematically-significant decision; "I want to locate civilization so I can beseech them to take on these orphaned children."2)  4e has transparent resolution mechanics and play procedures which are meant to be deployed to organically and authentically derive the outcome of this player-invoked-conflict; The Skill Challenge.3)  The only time that it would not be Force for a GM to say "there is no civilization to locate", thus exerting control over the player's thematically-significant decisions, is if this doesn't (somehow) violate the social contract.  I can think of about 1 scenario (perhaps there are more); you are playing in a world utterly bereft of civilization and the players (characters are irrelevant) are aware of this.  Off the top of my head, I can think of no such world in genre fiction (not even any form of the darkest post-apoc from Dying Earth to Mad Max to 28 Days Later to The Road)...but hey, if that was stipulated overtly to the players and they have buy-in, have at it.4)  In any other situation, it is the GMs job to (a) confirm the stakes with the players, (b) frame the conflict, (c) play the adversity while (d) consulting the resolution mechanics with the players.  Through that play procedure, the table will (e) derive the resolution-outcome without Force ("find out what happens" or "create story").So why would I want to covertly appropriate the player's agency (Force being control over thematically-significant decisions and Illusionism being its covert usage) here?  Historically, this happens for one of (or a combination) a few reasons:* I think my own ideas on story creation are better than this player's ideas (either for them or for the table as a collective); eg GM's metaplot.* I'm running a prescribed module or adventure path, this declaration and/or its prospective result is "off the grid", and I'm insufficiently equipped to let the trajectory of play move beyond that prescription.* I'm an adversarial GM who perceives play in a "me vs them" paradigm and any conflict won by the players is points scored by the opposition (see "Calvinball" above). That is all I can think of.  There might be others.So how would I accomplish the covert appropriation of the player's agency (Force  being control over thematically-significant decisions and Illusionism  being its covert usage) in 4e?  Well, it would have to be extraordinarily subtle.  In effect, this is subalpine mountain exploration conflict.  The player has built their PC such that they are "weak" on the CHA social skills (not Insight).  "Weak" in this case meaning 50 % chance at the medium DC.  The overwhelming majority of DCs in a Skill Challenge are medium (and it becomes moreso as you move up the complexity due to advantages...and you also get more augments with # SS scaling 1:1 with complexity).  Could I somehow turn the whole friggin thing into a social challenge that tightly funnels play toward her social skills?  I don't see how that would be remotely possible.  Even if it was, it would be about as subtle as a flying brick to the face.  How else?  Manipulation of target DCs?  They are right there, in your face; 11 > 15 > 23 for level 6.  6 of them should be medium and 2 high.  Again, about as subtle as a flying brick to the face.Overt Force, Calvinball goal-post shifting/rule changing, and covert Force (illusionism) is just extraordinarily difficult in 4e.  I mean, I guess if you have players that are utterly uninvested and don't know the rule system at all...then...sure.  But if that is someone's litmus test for "how vulnerable system n is to Force", that is some low-hanging fruit.</blockquote>

Verification