Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6642979" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I think most of the conversations that I like to strike up with fellow GMs are related to what place, if any, does GM Force have in play procedures and what should be systemitized.Take two recent TTRPG releases, 13th Age by Heinsoo and Tweet (whom I both hold in very high regard) and D&D 5e by Mearls et al.  The noncombat resolution mechanics for these two systems have some similarities that I personally have some trouble with because of the "Force vs Systemitized" question. In 13th Age, the DCs are subjective.  They're set based on the level of the PCs (thusly, PC build math) to consistently engender a feel of competent, heroic protagonists and to systemetize dramatically appropriate outputs.  They go further.  Players are counselled to telegraph the intent behind their noncombat action declarations.  GMs are counselled to use Fail Forward with that intent (and the stakes) as the primary inputs when narrating the results of noncombat actions that have failed to reach target number.  So the question with 13th Age becomes "are their hard failures in this system?"  "Is there the equivalent of a 6- (hard failure with punitive results) in PBtA systems or are all results either a 7-9 or a 10 +?"  if there is a hard failure that is meant to manifest in play, what play procedures and principles govern it because it certainly isn't systemitized?  "How do you handle that at your home table?"  So then we're talking about negotiated stakes perhaps and transparency of potential hard failure before the dice are rolled.  Or we're asserting something like "no, there are no hard failures in 13th Age noncombat action resolution...just setbacks and story losses." 5e has similar (but more tangled in my estimation) issues.  DCs are not subjective.  The system isn't about protagonizing players through their PCs and engendering dramatically appropriate outcomes.  GMs are specifically counselled to use fantasy world-based, internally consistent causul logic (process simulation...contrast with genre logic and subjective DCs) to set DCs.  PC build math doesn't orbit around subjective DCs to engender that protoganization and a bell curve or specific % of results.  We don't have players being counselled to transparently telegraph intent as in 13th Age.  However, we then have GMs being counselled to use Fail Forward now and again to engender some level of protagonization and dramatically appropriate/interesting results.  So a bevy of questions come up about GM Force vs Systemization here.  "When do I use Fail Forward?"  "When do I not?"  "What do I base it on with respect to the PCs action declaration (eg their intent...which isn't advised to be telegraphed...or process simulation principles)?"  "When and how do I decide (as it appears to be GM Force rather than Systemization that dictates failure conditions/appropriateness on a per check basis) a hard failure is appropriate?"These are the sorts of questions and conversations I like to have with GMs.  Sussing out the wherefors and whys are the primary reason I engage in RPG message board posting.</blockquote>

Verification