Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="RenleyRenfield" data-source="post: 9775401" data-attributes="member: 7044197">All of this is incorrect - in terms of mechanics driving play. GM fiat is not a mechanic.&nbsp; So what the GM (or even author of module) put as options in a adventure - are just that GM choice.&nbsp; There is no mechanic requiring a specific choice or specific outcome.&nbsp; If the player fails the roll, the GM is absolutely allowed in D&amp;D, GURPS, and other such systems - to no have an encounter, a trap, or whatever.&nbsp; GM fiat is always king in those games.&nbsp; In fact, it was the GM who put those there, so they don't even truly exist until the GM says they do.&nbsp; That is not how &quot;mechanics drive gameplay works&quot; at all. When using a mechanic, it takes the choice away from the GM.&nbsp; The book tells us what happens, and there is no GM option to negate it or remove it.&nbsp; At most they can diversely interpret it - but even then it must follow the fiction of the mechanic's stated resolution. While this isn't earth shattering, it is a major difference, hence why a lot of people don't play something like PBTA and say &quot;oh, this plays just like D&amp;D&quot; = because it doesn't!&nbsp;&nbsp; It's mechanics drive play in all new ways.&nbsp; We all know it does, undeniably so... so much so that there are a great many people who don't like the way PBTA (and other such fail forward, success with complications, mechanics driven GM-limiting systems) changes play mechanically.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="RenleyRenfield, post: 9775401, member: 7044197"] [B]All of this is incorrect [/B]- in terms of mechanics driving play. GM fiat is not a mechanic. So what the GM (or even author of module) put as options in a adventure - are just that GM choice. There is no mechanic [I]requiring [/I]a specific choice or specific outcome. If the player fails the roll, the GM is absolutely allowed in D&D, GURPS, and other such systems - to no have an encounter, a trap, or whatever. GM fiat is always king in those games. In fact, it was the GM who put those there, so they don't even truly exist until the GM says they do. [B]That is not how "mechanics drive gameplay works" at all. [/B] When using a mechanic, it takes the choice away from the GM. The book tells us what happens, and there is no GM option to negate it or remove it. At most they can diversely interpret it - but even then it must follow the fiction of the mechanic's stated resolution. While this isn't earth shattering, [B]it is a major difference[/B], hence why a lot of people don't play something like PBTA and say[I] "oh, this plays just like D&D"[/I] = because it doesn't! It's mechanics drive play in all new ways. We all know it does, undeniably so... so much so that there are a great many people who don't like the way PBTA (and other such fail forward, success with complications, mechanics driven GM-limiting systems) changes play mechanically. [/QUOTE]

Verification