thread: 2011-08-01 : The Unreliable Currency series from 2010
On 2011-08-02, stefoid wrote:
I mean you dont have to write in a rulebook, under section 13 - paragraph 4.3 "the rule for attacking from a height advantage", etc.. You can supply a generalized procedure.
As to the how you might implement such a procedure, in Ingenero for example, the player says what their characters intentions are and how they intend to make it happen. "Im going to blindside the Nazi that Jack is fighting to give him an advantage"
There is no specific rule for blindsiding an opponent.
In Ingenero, the player decides what they want to happen - in this case they type of advantage/disadvantage the character intends - not the GM.
The zillion situational rules arent stated explicitly, they are lumped under GM plausibility fiat, just like anything a character attempts.
Is that just shifting the judgement call from "did I gain a bonus?" to "is it possible to gain a bonus?" yes. But thats a lot more relaxed judgement call to make. Its a lot easier/agreeable to split the remotely plausible from the flatly impossible than it is to determine if something that is plausible, actually happens.
Well actually its not shifting the judgement call to plausibility, its limiting it to that, because you always have to make the plausibility call anyway.
