Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9007997" data-attributes="member: 70468">I want to posit that protecting the competitive integrity of the game as a corollary of Baker’s stance. If conflict is determined through negotiation (or even unilaterally), then competitive play is not possible. From a gamist perspective, these unwanted outcomes must be possible and wanted for all participants (players and GM). If the players cannot eek out an edge or risk defeat, then their play is performative more than competitive. It must be possible to effect an “anticlimatic” battle or “solve” an adventure too quickly (but also to lose utterly or even just partially). Relying on social convention also comes with another constraint: the perception of fair play. The rules in that case work as a blame-shifting mechanism: the GM didn’t decide to have rocks fall; the rules indicate that something really bad should happen, and rocks falling is how that was manifested.Given the above, the function of elaborate combat procedures does seem to be as an extended “find out if there is an unwelcome outcome” process. It’s like clocks (in BitD) or skill challenges (in 4e) where multiple rolls and actions are used to determine the outcome rather than just a simple check. Where an issue arises is when groups don’t want an unwelcome outcome (TPK, surrender, being forced to flee, etc), so the process is manipulated or run with weaker inputs to avoid those outcomes. That can be true for both combat and extended tests (clocks, skill challenges, etc). If the referee provides only easy or straight-forward challenges on purpose, you can follow the rules as written while avoiding the spirit (of rules being a way to create the unwelcome and unwanted). It should be no surprise that Baker has a solution: explicate the agenda and principles for running the game as rules to follow.</blockquote>

Verification