aramis erak
Legend
Nope. I don't joke on forums as a general rule.You must be joking.
You really are joking.
Nope. I don't joke on forums as a general rule.You must be joking.
You really are joking.
Why? Play would go something like this:
GM: The evil sorcerer is chanting and waving his arms as a globe of vile miasma from the Pit itself coalesces in front of him.
Player: That's not good! I try and stop him.
GM: How?
Player: I throw my dagger at him!
GM: Okay. (dice clatter) The dagger tumbles through the air and then THUNKS into the sorcerer's thigh. He snarls and spits and continues his spell.
Player: That's even more not good!
Next time, the player tries something else. What's the problem?
So, you are going to assume adversarial jerk GM behavior as a strawman against the idea? Go ahead, but it isn't a reasonable way to engage the subjectGm: The evil sorcerer is chanting and waving his arms as a globe of vile miasma from the Pit itself coalesces in front of him.
Player: That's not good! I try and stop him.
GM: You already went this turn. You should have readied an action to trigger an attack when he started casting a spell.
Player: How was I supposed to know that?
GM: Intuition? I don't know... sucks to be you. Who's next?
So, you are going to assume adversarial jerk GM behavior as a strawman against the idea? Go ahead, but it isn't a reasonable way to engage the subject
Again, you are assuming people aren't playing in good faith. You are assuming the player or the GM is trying to get one over on the other, rather than working together.You don't see the issue?
How would one know they can ready an action? In another edition, how would one know they cannot ready an action?
Is it intuitive to know it can be done? Or that it can't be done? Or should the player be able to intuit it based on edition?
I'm not 100% sure what "narrative mechanics" are, but assuming it means something like player-side mechanics that permit stipulating the fiction without that being anchored in the player's character then I am 100% sure that Apocalypse World doesn't bring them to the fore. There is one Battlebabe move, one Savvyhead move, maybe one or two other playbook moves.What you are talking about is collaborative world building and narrative mechanics. Those are new-ish (although a look at the history of the hobby will show they have been around longer than you think) and have really come to the fore with the popularity of Powered by the Apocalypse and inspired systems.
Again, you are assuming people aren't playing in good faith. You are assuming the player or the GM is trying to get one over on the other, rather than working together.
This description of action resolution mechanics seems better-suited to some RPGs than others.all character mechanics are usually doing is telling you the likelihood of succeeding at things and what influences it. The benefit of them is that it cuts out a lot of communication of failure from GMs and players not explaining to each other what's going on in enough of a fashion the other properly understands it.
Was there any visible indicator that the evil sorcerer was about to cast a spell prior to the GM's turn? If not, too bad. If so, the GM should be mentioning this stuff when it happens, in most cases the top of the round I would imagine.Gm: The evil sorcerer is chanting and waving his arms as a globe of vile miasma from the Pit itself coalesces in front of him.
Player: That's not good! I try and stop him.
GM: You already went this turn. You should have readied an action to trigger an attack when he started casting a spell.
Player: How was I supposed to know that?
GM: Intuition? I don't know... sucks to be you. Who's next?
Was there any visible indicator that the evil sorcerer was about to cast a spell prior to the GM's turn? If not, too bad. If so, the GM should be mentioning this stuff when it happens, in most cases the top of the round I would imagine.