Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7716275" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is easily described in analytic terms: the GM is making a call based on the fictional positioning of the PC (&quot;You're in cumbersome armour, so you can't jump&quot;) and the player doesn't share the GM's view of the fictional positioning.One common approach to resolving these sorts of disagreements is to say that the GM always has the last (perhaps even the first!) say on the fictional positioning. What they may tend to do, though - especially if it is first say - is discourage players from declaring actions where fictional positioning is relevant, so that they can rely purely on mechanics that never interact with the fiction. That is, in effect, what is being advocated here:3E replaces adjudication based on fictional positioning with adjudication based on rules at heaps of places in the game (continuing an approach to D&amp;D that I would say had its published origins in the late-80s DSG and WSG).My preferred solution is to maintain the significance of fictional positioning for action declaration, but to change the incentives that operate on players and GMs (so that, eg, GMs don't need to feel worried that by letting players get the benefit of their conception of their PCs' fictional positioning, the game will break or the player get some sort of undue benefit). All three games that I am currently GMing - Burning Wheel, Cortex/MHRP, and 4e D&amp;D - have solutions to this problem along the lines I have sketched, though it is different for each game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7716275, member: 42582"] This is easily [I]described[/I] in analytic terms: the GM is making a call based on the [I]fictional positioning[/I] of the PC ("You're in cumbersome armour, so you can't jump") and the player doesn't share the GM's view of the fictional positioning. One common approach to [I]resolving[/I] these sorts of disagreements is to say that the GM always has the last (perhaps even the first!) say on the fictional positioning. What they may tend to do, though - especially if it is [I]first say[/I] - is discourage players from declaring actions where fictional positioning is relevant, so that they can rely purely on mechanics that never interact with the fiction. That is, in effect, what is being advocated here: [indent][/indent] 3E replaces adjudication based on fictional positioning with adjudication based on rules at heaps of places in the game (continuing an approach to D&D that I would say had its published origins in the late-80s DSG and WSG). My preferred solution is to maintain the significance of fictional positioning for action declaration, but to change the incentives that operate on players and GMs (so that, eg, GMs don't need to feel worried that by letting players get the benefit of [I]their[/I] conception of their PCs' fictional positioning, the game will break or the player get some sort of undue benefit). All three games that I am currently GMing - Burning Wheel, Cortex/MHRP, and 4e D&D - have solutions to this problem along the lines I have sketched, though it is different for each game. [/QUOTE]

Verification