Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7596966" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes, but in an attempt to give the player so much of their due, you can end up missing a point that isn't so much about the player or the character, but is about adventure design.The focus isn't on how the player makes all decisions for the character, both tactical and strategic.&nbsp; The point is that there are times when the adventure or challenge does an end run and goes for the player directly, bypassing the character and game mechanics.Logic puzzles where the GM does not give hints via skill checks are one example.&nbsp; Social scenes where the GM bases entirely off what the player says, without using the system's social encounter resolution mechanics, would be another.&nbsp; Telling a player that their character can climb a 60' rope if the *player* can climb a 10' rope would be another.Much of the point is that the player has already made strategic decisions in their character build.&nbsp; If you challenge the player directly, those decisions are voided!&nbsp; And that's not always cool.&nbsp; We can easily construct a scenario that makes this obvious.&nbsp; We have one player who is a total mechanics, powergaming and logic rockstar, and has built himself a super-effective combat barbarian, with an Int of 6.&nbsp; We have another player who isn't such a grand with manipulating the rules, isn't stunning at logic puzzles, but has a wizard character with an Int of 18.If you challenge these with the classic &quot;One guard always tells the truth, the other always lies&quot; logic puzzle, the barbarian player can get it easily, but the wizard player won't.&nbsp; But, within the story, the wizard should totally have figured it out before the problem was fully posed, while the barbarian should have gotten bored, shouted &quot;TOO MUCH THINKY!!!&quot; and tried to stab a guard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7596966, member: 177"] Yes, but in an attempt to give the player so much of their due, you can end up missing a point that isn't so much about the player or the character, but is about [I]adventure design[/I]. The focus isn't on how the player makes all decisions for the character, both tactical and strategic. The point is that there are times when the adventure or challenge does an end run and goes for the player directly, bypassing the character and game mechanics. Logic puzzles where the GM does not give hints via skill checks are one example. Social scenes where the GM bases entirely off what the player says, without using the system's social encounter resolution mechanics, would be another. Telling a player that their character can climb a 60' rope if the *player* can climb a 10' rope would be another. Much of the point is that the player has already made strategic decisions in their character build. If you challenge the player directly, those decisions are voided! And that's not always cool. We can easily construct a scenario that makes this obvious. We have one player who is a total mechanics, powergaming and logic rockstar, and has built himself a super-effective combat barbarian, with an Int of 6. We have another player who isn't such a grand with manipulating the rules, isn't stunning at logic puzzles, but has a wizard character with an Int of 18. If you challenge these with the classic "One guard always tells the truth, the other always lies" logic puzzle, the barbarian player can get it easily, but the wizard player won't. But, within the story, the wizard should totally have figured it out before the problem was fully posed, while the barbarian should have gotten bored, shouted "TOO MUCH THINKY!!!" and tried to stab a guard. [/QUOTE]

Verification