Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8417123" data-attributes="member: 16814">Oh.  What you mean is that you're assuming I'm defensive, and so I'm defensive, and I don't get to have a say about my own mental state? I guess that's a take one could have.  I'd prefer you just take my word for it.  Also, if you read my statements about Monopoly and Risk as a rant, perhaps go back, assume a tone that's intended to explain rather than rant, and read it again.   It's passive because it's the players asking the GM to tell them more story/plot/setting details.  It's not driving the story, it's looking for the story.  Again, there's nothing wrong with this, it's exactly how I run and expect to play 5e and a number of other games (like most CoC).  I'd say it's a lot less passive that reading a book or watching a movie, and maybe on par with some very good video games, but it's definitely more passive than driving the story forward on a new path.  Really this is about how much is expected from the player.  Asking the GM questions to hear more story doesn't really expect a lot, but having to declare actions that are of dramatic import to the PC and risking quite  a lot on those answers is more demanding of the players.  Sometimes I love the demand, sometimes I'd rather something less demanding.  This really determines what I want to play.As for GURPs somehow setting an expected standard because it has rules for things that don't work well but at least it has rules -- okay.  I really don't care or agree this sets an expectation that should be met.  PbtA does do investigations, they just don't look a thing like how investigations look in CoC or D&D.  They do it differently.  So, looking for bad rules in PbtA on how you do CoC style investigations is something I'm glad doesn't exist -- much like I'm fairly happy that Monopoly doesn't have rules for how to invade Australia.The answer is actually not a number.  It's not a question that makes much sense.  Like asking how to invade Australia while playing Monopoly.Yeah, none of those actually do any work here.  Augury, for instance, just tells you what the GM's plot is, it doesn't resolve anything about what the character wants.  Renown and Loyalty?  Not even close, as neither of those address anything about what the character wants but are, instead, scores as to how well you align you play to what the GM expects.  You haven't touched the core conflict here at all -- what does this mean for the character as a character?  What are they going to do?  Instead, you've just shifted to outside metrics which are all just a stand in for "what does the GM think should happen."Strangely, though, you're adhering to the authority of "how I understand games to work" and not questioning that at all.  I'm inviting you to question that and look at a different paradigm.  No, investigations in PbtA games are not about discovering the clues the GM has written down.  They are about what happens when characters enter into charged situations and what results from those choices.  I can't tell you how an investigation works in PbtA because it will work entirely differently depending on the inputs and what the PCs do.  Hence the statements that motives and intents and actions matter.  You call this authority, but it's like saying that the ingredients in cooking are an authority -- if you change the ingredients and do different things you get different food.  You're saying "how do I make a chocolate cake" and we're saying, "what are your ingredients?"Oh, no, my D&D games are not lacking at all, thank you very much.  However, let's look at which of us is throwing out insults -- you've accused me of being defensive despite my statements otherwise, and now you're saying my games are lacking without any knowledge whatsoever of those games.  I'll thank you to not to continue doing this.</blockquote>

Verification