Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9331417" data-attributes="member: 6795602">On stakes - If players can unilaterally set the stakes of a scene and then have a mechanic resolve it, then what is the need for a DM?What I observe most often being described in these games is more the player chooses the positive outcome, the dm the negative and then the dice determine which version to go with. Or the player chooses the success outcome the dice are rolled and if not full success then the dm chooses the complication or failure state.Generally the dm’s input is constrained to follow from the fiction, but he may also be constrained in a manner such that he can only pick complications that arise from aspects the player has indicated on the character sheet.In any event the games don’t usually have unilateral setting of stakes for a particular conflict by the player.&nbsp; The GM typically gets to at least choose a negative outcome from a list of player approved options.Even in games that by rule give the player veto power on any stakes they don’t like, their are typically other rules that compel them to not be a weasel or similar such that they aren’t playing the game in good faith if they try to game the stake selection process for precisely the stakes they want. Or to say it another way, what the player puts at stake in a given instance isn’t completely in his control.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9331417, member: 6795602"] On stakes - If players can unilaterally set the stakes of a scene and then have a mechanic resolve it, then what is the need for a DM? What I observe most often being described in these games is more the player chooses the positive outcome, the dm the negative and then the dice determine which version to go with. Or the player chooses the success outcome the dice are rolled and if not full success then the dm chooses the complication or failure state. Generally the dm’s input is constrained to follow from the fiction, but he may also be constrained in a manner such that he can only pick complications that arise from aspects the player has indicated on the character sheet. In any event the games don’t usually have unilateral setting of stakes for a particular conflict by the player. The GM typically gets to at least choose a negative outcome from a list of player approved options. Even in games that by rule give the player veto power on any stakes they don’t like, their are typically other rules that compel them to not be a weasel or similar such that they aren’t playing the game in good faith if they try to game the stake selection process for precisely the stakes they want. Or to say it another way, what the player puts at stake in a given instance isn’t completely in his control. [/QUOTE]

Verification