Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7327272" data-attributes="member: 42582">[MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION]If the GM has the inherent power to veto/filter/manipulate, then it is inherent that the GM is not bound by action resolution. Having regard to it when you're not inclined to overturn it is not a mode of being bound.This then relevant to your question &quot;Why not (1) through (4)?&quot; (3) and (4) aren't avaiable to an omnipotent GM, because they only make sense if the GM is bound.An omnipotent GM can, of course, make a dice roll or call for one from the player: but as s/he has the power to disregard/override it, it is nothing more than a suggestion, an additional factor that s/he might consider.This is why I don't like it as a GMing method: when I'm GMing I want to find out what happens; not to take suggestions, consider input, and the decide what happens. The way I do this is by following the rules for action resolution.You say that only an abusive GM would decide that &quot;my guy wins&quot; without action resolution: but in fact that is exactly what is happening every time a player looks for a map in the study (or a mace in the tower, or whatever) and the GM says &quot;no, it's not there&quot; on the basis of his/her notes. This is the GM playing his/her study (tower; world in general) as a &quot;character&quot; who is not subject to action resolution and always gets to win over player action declarations.The point is obvious for races between PCs and NPCs. My point is that it is equally the case for any other situation in which the player is declaring an action for his/her PC in the hope of success.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7327272, member: 42582"] [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] If the GM has the inherent power to veto/filter/manipulate, then it is inherent that the GM is not bound by action resolution. [I]Having regard to it when you're not inclined to overturn it[/I] is not a mode of being bound. This then relevant to your question "Why not (1) through (4)?" (3) and (4) aren't avaiable to an omnipotent GM, because they only make sense if the GM is bound. An omnipotent GM can, of course, make a dice roll or call for one from the player: but as s/he has the power to disregard/override it, it is nothing more than a suggestion, an additional factor that s/he might consider. This is why I don't like it as a GMing method: when I'm GMing I want to [I]find out[/I] what happens; not to take suggestions, consider input, and the [I]decide[/I] what happens. The way I do this is by following the rules for action resolution. You say that only an abusive GM would decide that "my guy wins" without action resolution: but in fact that is exactly what is happening every time a player looks for a map in the study (or a mace in the tower, or whatever) and the GM says "no, it's not there" on the basis of his/her notes. This is the GM playing his/her study (tower; world in general) as a "character" who is not subject to action resolution and always gets to win over player action declarations. The point is obvious for races between PCs and NPCs. My point is that it is equally the case for any other situation in which the player is declaring an action for his/her PC in the hope of success. [/QUOTE]

Verification