Super-Powers shift focus of techniques/challenges?

[Michael S. Miller]

About defining "wrong" you said:

Generally, the GM.  It's usually defined at the moment of action, but it can be defined before play begins.  However, it's only meant to be used in cases where it's reasonable.  Therefore, there can also be multiple "right" ways and multiple "wrong" ways to pass an obstacle.  "Right" and "Wrong" are determined by what adds additional difficulty and what doesn't.  Busting through a wall in an enemy fortress would likely be wrong, while busting through the same wall in the wilderness could very well be right.

So the GM can arbitrarily set difficulties where she wants simply because she's the GM? At first blush, this seems to be prime territory for GM abuse--no matter how powerful the PC's superheroes, they'll never be more powerful for than the GM! She can set up whatever obstacles she wants, and make them as difficult as she likes. If she wants a wall to be an obstacle, she gives it a very high difficulty number and--PRESTO--it's an obstacle!

However, what you've stated is holding the GM back from such blatant abuses of her authority (what we call "Force" around here) is that her difficulty decisions must be "reasonable." Now, I figure "reasonable" to you is going to be different from "reasonable" for me, which will be different from "reasonable" for a structural engineer, or a 15-year-old comic book geek, or John Q. Gamer.

So if "reasonableness" is the ultimate authority over how difficult a given obstacle is going to be (as well as how potent a given mudane or super ability acting against the obstacle is going to be), then whose idea of "reasonable" counts? How does what's "reasonable" get decided? That is something your game really ought address. And not in a "Well, everyone ought to be get along" kind of way, but in a "Do X, Y, and Z, and everyone will end up on the same page" kind of way.

Does that make sense, Nog? (BTW, what's your real name?)

[Nogusielkt]

So the GM can arbitrarily set difficulties where she wants simply because she's the GM? At first blush, this seems to be prime territory for GM abuse--no matter how powerful the PC's superheroes, they'll never be more powerful for than the GM! She can set up whatever obstacles she wants, and make them as difficult as she likes. If she wants a wall to be an obstacle, she gives it a very high difficulty number and--PRESTO--it's an obstacle!

However, what you've stated is holding the GM back from such blatant abuses of her authority (what we call "Force" around here) is that her difficulty decisions must be "reasonable." Now, I figure "reasonable" to you is going to be different from "reasonable" for me, which will be different from "reasonable" for a structural engineer, or a 15-year-old comic book geek, or John Q. Gamer.

So if "reasonableness" is the ultimate authority over how difficult a given obstacle is going to be (as well as how potent a given mudane or super ability acting against the obstacle is going to be), then whose idea of "reasonable" counts? How does what's "reasonable" get decided? That is something your game really ought address. And not in a "Well, everyone ought to be get along" kind of way, but in a "Do X, Y, and Z, and everyone will end up on the same page" kind of way.

The difficulty levels cannot be adjusted because there is only a single difficulty level for any given obstacle.  A brick wall is a brick wall.  However, if you are referring to the fact that a brick wall could instead be a wood wall if the GM wants the players to be able to break through it, then you are correct in that statement.  However, I think this would hold true for any game where things are planned in advance like that.  The word "reasonable" is just implied right now.  The reason I was worried about obstacles not being challenges and changing the focus of the game is specifically because there is no variable difficulty.  No chance to manipulate the powers of the players as to what they affect and what effect they have.  "Reasonable", however, still gets decided, but it is decided by anyone.  If you feel your power should affect an obstacle in a certain way (even though there is very little wiggle room), and it isn't being played as such, then all you have to do is mention it.  Sometimes it is just forgotten, and sometimes you reveal a new point of view that will make sense (in both cases your effect is applied).  Then, sometimes, it is not applied.  The decision is a group effort, but in my case specifically, there is too little room for that to happen often.  I think that it's just common sense most of the time.  You don't want to make loud noises while in an enemy base, when you haven't been discovered yet.  If that isn't implied, then it will shortly be learned.

Does that make sense, Nog? (BTW, what's your real name?)

Call me Nog.

[Josh Roby]

The difficulty levels cannot be adjusted because there is only a single difficulty level for any given obstacle.  A brick wall is a brick wall.  However, if you are referring to the fact that a brick wall could instead be a wood wall if the GM wants the players to be able to break through it, then you are correct in that statement.  However, I think this would hold true for any game where things are planned in advance like that.

Two things -- Firstly, are you proposing that you will be publishing a rule for every contingency (wood walls have difficulty 3, brick walls difficulty 4, steel walls difficulty 5)?  I'm just trying to clarify your intent in my own mind.
Secondly, yes, this holds true for anything in which the GM predetermines the elements included in the adventure session.  Discussions about GM fiat are usually more about the "GM Prep" than with in-the-moment decisions at the table.

The reason I was worried about obstacles not being challenges and changing the focus of the game is specifically because there is no variable difficulty.  No chance to manipulate the powers of the players as to what they affect and what effect they have.

If the GM determines the scope of the challenge, then the GM is certainly manipulating what the powers of the players will be affecting.  Aquaman is a prime example.  If one of the players makes Aquaman, and the GM then designs an adventure in the Sahara Desert, the GM is pretty much destroying that player's hope of being at all relevant to the adventure.

"Reasonable", however, still gets decided, but it is decided by anyone.  If you feel your power should affect an obstacle in a certain way (even though there is very little wiggle room), and it isn't being played as such, then all you have to do is mention it.  Sometimes it is just forgotten, and sometimes you reveal a new point of view that will make sense (in both cases your effect is applied).  Then, sometimes, it is not applied.  The decision is a group effort, but in my case specifically, there is too little room for that to happen often.

Are there specific procedures by which this "in both cases your effect is applied" and "sometimes it is not applied" is determined?  Does the decision rest with one player, or is the group polled?  Do players expend some sort of currency to get their way?

I think that it's just common sense most of the time.  You don't want to make loud noises while in an enemy base, when you haven't been discovered yet.  If that isn't implied, then it will shortly be learned.

I think your last line there is the telling point.  Learned how?  By the players suffering negative consequences for their mistake?  Who determines that those negative consequences come into play?  How does the GM determine how loud the noise has to be before the guards are alerted?  This really isn't "common sense" especially considering that the imagined facts that players and GMs will be making their decisions about will not be common to begin with -- what I think is a muffled and non-dangerous sound may be interpreted by another player as something sharp and alerting the guards.

[Mike Holmes]

We seem to be going in circles here. Mike is asking about how the premise of the game is set, and hearing that it's about "right and wrong choices" is asking about how that's addressed. Now we're hearing that play is about simulative crashing through brick walls. I think we have a huge communications barrier going on here. Not just because of the actual language barrier, but because of the lack of common gaming terms being used.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

As usual, none of this is going to be helpful without the context of actual play.

Now that the thread has meandered long enough, I think it's time for me to say "Post in actual play, tell us what your play-experiences are like," and that will provide enough context for any conceptual discussions to be successful.

Best,
Ron