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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7514098" data-attributes="member: 42582">Why do you think the world "you" refers to in your sentence?Here is what I am sceptical of: that there is such a thing as farily refereeing the Duchess's reaction, which is comparable to fairly refereeing the result of poking a stone with a 10' pole. I think the reason is obvious, but in case it's not I'll spell it out: the reactions of stones to being poked are fairly simple, fairly obvious, and - once the size and position of the stone are known - generally agreed upon. Adjudication of dungeoneering depends upon this fact - we all know that poked stones will move (if they are mobile and not too big) and thereby fall to the floor, trigger traps, etc.Whereas the reactions of people given bad news about their intimate relationships are incredibly complex and very hard to predict even for those with a rich  knowledge of the person and the circumstances, and (unlike the case with stones) it is highly unlikely that any GM's notes contain that sort of rich information. Thus, the GM deciding that the Duchess does X rather than Y is not a case of the GM fairly adjudicating the fiction. It's a case of the GM unilaterally deciding how the fiction shall unfold.Telling me that the Duchess is a NPC doesn't give me any reason to want to GM a game in this fashion, nor to play in a game GMed in this fashion. And - unsurprisingly - RPGs have had devices to take this sort of decision-making out of the exclusive hands of the GM from the very beginning. Consider reaction rolls. Classic Traveller (Book 3, p 22, 1978 printing of 1977 edition) says the following:When non-player characters are encountered, their reactions will dictate their activity in terms of business deals, violence, assistance, charity, cooperation and a number of other actions. When an encounter occurs, throw two dice and consult the reaction table. . . . DMs [= dice modifiers] can and should be created to deal with specific situations . . . Reactions are used by the referee and by players as a guide to the probable actions of individuals. They may be used to determine the response of a person to business offers or deals . . .The rules don't expressly address what happens if a PC reveals to a NPC that her husband is having an affair, but they are easily extrapolated to deal with that case: the better the reaction roll, the closer the reaction of the NPC to that which the player hoped for (that being analogous to agreeing to a business offer or deal, or otherwise cooperating). And the player can also attempt to influence the roll with appropriate DMs, whether established by skilled play of the fiction (buttering up the Duchess) or by pointing to appropriate skills (in this context, Carousing and Liaison would both seem apposite) or other attributes (eg Social Standing).Is it? Or is it realistic that a skilled combatant can recognise which attacks that are targetting Tara pose a real threat?As I said, there are other systems where the threat that the attack poses to Tara can be known after the target is declared but before the dice are rolled - eg because there is the intermediate stage of putting dice into a pool; or because a successful roll to attack doesn't move straight on to damage but triggers a parry or dodge reaction, which the readied defence could contribute to. That D&D has no such stage is an oddity of its mechanics, and nothing to do with what is or isn't realistic.</blockquote>

Verification