Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8749206" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Pulled from <a href="http://rolltop-indigo.blogspot.com/p/an-rpg-lexicon.html" target="_blank">An RPG Lexicon</a>So I think this thread is a good indicator of just how veto-sensitive and adjudication-sensitive the concept of "Tactical Infinity" is.  You can trivially veto or adjudicate the realization of it (as a governing ethos and "feel" of play) right out of existence!I look at this action declaration in the scope of the 5e rules engine and my brain goes immediately to the following:* Utter nothingburger in terms of mechanical implication.* Lets resolve it with a level of mechanical stakes (its difficult to do this in 5e because the levers/teeth just aren't there...I think the "eat x HD worth of HP restored soley upon a Long Rest prayer of thanks" is a decent lever...Exhaustion might be another...a troublesome Flaw is interesting but doesn't do enough work) and let a thematically interesting thing occur (perhaps this moment of divine intervention fundamentally changes the PC who either layed their hands on their friend and prayed or on the party who was "healed").  Maybe one of the two players become a Paladin or Cleric downstream of this miraculous event?Yet, it seems the overwhelming majority of respondents think of this exercise in terms of "artifact of PC build meets GM conception of setting (which gates and binds permissible action declarations pretty significantly)."  It just feels like "the ability to attempt any tactic to solve a problem" with that level of veto-and/or-adjudication sensitivity is going to significantly contract the actual move-space available to players across a large distribution of tables.  Therefore, on the continuum of BRUTALLY FINITE <-------------------> TACTICALLY INFINITY, play is going to hew a hell of a lot closer to the left than if a GM or system were inherently more permissive (assuming neither the actual play loop or the through line of play doesn't buckle under the weight of the influence of the action declared-and-resolved).It just feels all cost no benefit here to shut this move down (and injure the actual realization of the concept of Tactical Infinity within the process of play) and turns Tactical Infinity into branding rather than a concept that the participants feel actually governs play.Again, if it injured actual play (rather than rendering it more dynamic and interesting)...then sure, increase the stakes considerably or shut it down if you must...otherwise, resolve and play on.</blockquote>

Verification