Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8227303" data-attributes="member: 16814">Not quite.&nbsp; The prep was establishing the story of the NPC, which the PC then discovered.&nbsp; This puts the story of the NPC in the place of primacy -- ie, the thing that is true.Prep is difficult to do for protagonism, largely because it tends to protagonize the NPCs over the PCs.&nbsp; Prep, in this case, needs to be focused on having interesting complications handy, in case they become useful. &quot;Hold on lightly&quot; is the usual advice for prep in this case -- it's fine to think ahead, and jot down some notes, but you need to be ready to ditch that entirely on a moments notice if play moves in a different direction.&nbsp; This isn't entirely improvisational play, though, as systems that implement this also have strong constraints and tools for enabling this play.&nbsp; I don't disagree -- 2a, though, has a bit more space, which is why I put it down as uncertain and called out the same issues as likely.And, yes, 2b does follow the 'honor the result' philosophy.&nbsp; There's a difference between how you might implement this in 5e, though, and that sits within the space of who controls the fiction.&nbsp; In D&amp;D (5e included), the GM is absolutely framing the situation however they want -- there are no constraints on the GM to address the PC's dramatic needs.&nbsp; Second, the GM is under no compulsion to allow a check -- they have the unilateral authority to declare the action as a failure.&nbsp; This is actually good and required, because otherwise an action that conflicts with prep that hasn't yet been revealed (secret notes, if you will) cannot be negated, which is a cornerstone of the importance of prep.&nbsp; So, to even get to a check, the situation is controlled by what the GM has presented and whether or not the GM decides a check is even needed.&nbsp; Then you can get to the GM picking up a principled approach to always honor the result of the check with regards to the goal of the action, but this is again still moderated by checking for conflict with prep, or by the GM being able to determine the effect level (you may just move towards your goal, and the GM calls for another check, a la some climbing examples).&nbsp; But, yes, clear stake setting, open DCs, and honoring results does move towards enabling protagonism.&nbsp; It at least doesn't fight strongly against it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8227303, member: 16814"] Not quite. The prep was establishing the story of the NPC, which the PC then discovered. This puts the story of the NPC in the place of primacy -- ie, the thing that is true. Prep is difficult to do for protagonism, largely because it tends to protagonize the NPCs over the PCs. Prep, in this case, needs to be focused on having interesting complications handy, in case they become useful. "Hold on lightly" is the usual advice for prep in this case -- it's fine to think ahead, and jot down some notes, but you need to be ready to ditch that entirely on a moments notice if play moves in a different direction. This isn't entirely improvisational play, though, as systems that implement this also have strong constraints and tools for enabling this play. I don't disagree -- 2a, though, has a bit more space, which is why I put it down as uncertain and called out the same issues as likely. And, yes, 2b does follow the 'honor the result' philosophy. There's a difference between how you might implement this in 5e, though, and that sits within the space of who controls the fiction. In D&D (5e included), the GM is absolutely framing the situation however they want -- there are no constraints on the GM to address the PC's dramatic needs. Second, the GM is under no compulsion to allow a check -- they have the unilateral authority to declare the action as a failure. This is actually good and required, because otherwise an action that conflicts with prep that hasn't yet been revealed (secret notes, if you will) cannot be negated, which is a cornerstone of the importance of prep. So, to even get to a check, the situation is controlled by what the GM has presented and whether or not the GM decides a check is even needed. Then you can get to the GM picking up a principled approach to always honor the result of the check with regards to the goal of the action, but this is again still moderated by checking for conflict with prep, or by the GM being able to determine the effect level (you may just move towards your goal, and the GM calls for another check, a la some climbing examples). But, yes, clear stake setting, open DCs, and honoring results does move towards enabling protagonism. It at least doesn't fight strongly against it. [/QUOTE]

Verification