NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9081072" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Er...what? How? Which games?How? Which games?I'm noticing a pattern here, where the people who claim games work this way speak in abstractions and airy references. When asked for specifics, they either do not answer, refuse to elaborate, or ask people to (somehow) point to examples of absence. Thus far, AFAICT, only three examples of actual game mechanics have been made: Spout Lore (which I have already rebutted quite thoroughly), Flashbacks (which I studied up on and found seriously lacking in the "player gets to just declare advantage" department!), and Fate Aspects. Only the latter even remotely looks like what people have described--and even then, as I have been helpfully informed by someone much better versed with that system, the player CANNOT just willy-nilly declare things, there must be good backing for it already, and without that, the GM is not required to accept anything of the sort.Can you name one game where this stripping of player agency occurs?But intent absolutely matters. It's extremely important, even. That's what makes the difference between murder and self-defense. Intent is what makes the difference between sin and error, cruelty and ignorance, injustice and incompetence. That doesn't mean it is specifically more or less important than impact (which is more important varies), but intent matters a hell of a lot, especially with action declaration.No, it isn't. Because, again, I ask for you (or anyone) to name one single game where the rules actually tell players to do the thing you describe and tell GMs to simply roll over and accept whatever players say.I am pretty confident you won't find any. Which is why I keep calling this a boogeyman.That isn't what was said. What was said is that the DM consults their notes on whether the sought objects are there, and then determines how hard it is to find out that they are there. You keep forcing this into a situation where the player cannot ever look for something specific, no matter what. Pemerton explicitly is describing something where the player IS looking for something specific--but just because they seek does not mean they will find. Why are you forcing this to be the player NEVER EVER looking for anything specific?To expand to other examples: Why can't players try to attack a specific body part? By your restrictions, the player cannot ever attempt anything more specific than "I attack the orc." They can't try for a trick shot, or pinning the orc's foot to the floor, or anything else. Only absolutely detail-free generic actions are allowed. By your restrictions, the player cannot ever say which book they want to read from a bookshelf. They can only say they read a book. By your restrictions, the player cannot ever say what song they perform to distract an audience, they can only say they perform a song (heck, even that might be too much!) Etc., etc., etc.</blockquote>

Verification