Lanefan
Victoria Rules
And again we'll disagree, as I simply don't see it the same way you do.I've responded to both these things in multiple posts, begining way upthread when I noted the same apparent category error in a post made by [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].
I will do so again.
If you view the gameworld as a living breathing thing, it reacts in some way or other to every little thing the players do to it; it also in its reactions to what the DM does to it sometimes proacts against the players via their characters, who then have to react.Taken at face value the claim that "the gameworld only reacts to the players" makes no sense to me. Adding in the adverb "as determined by the GM" doesn't help, because it's still the case that the gameworld doesn't react to anything. Apparently it's clear to you what is meant, but unfortunately that doesn't help me! (I know that you believe that noone "should need to clarify" these things. All I can do is apologise for my difficulty in making sense of the claim. The metaphor is not working for me.)
Whether it's fictional or not is completely irrelevant. If your first premise is to see things through the eyes of your character then it's easy to see how the action-reaction cycle has some extra steps:
Action path: DM --> gameworld --> PC --> Player
Reaction path: Player --> PC --> gameworld --> DM
Metagaming (which as we've learned some here like and some don't) usually skips the middle two steps.
This last sentence is a bit extreme, and misses the mark by just a bit. Assuming the DM wants her players to come back next week there is certainly some obligation to have regard to their concerns/interests at least on a macro scale (e.g. if everyone wants to play a low-fantasy maritime-based campaign then that's probably what the DM should try to provide), but that obligation doesn't extend nearly as far to their characters. Players tend to stick around longer than characters do, in my experience; while characters come and go.GM-driven: The GM authors the gameworld having regard to consistency with the established fiction, where this includes not only fiction already established in the course of play but also fiction authored secretly by the GM. This requirement of consistency can extend to rendering player action declarations for their PCs failures simply on the basis of fictional positioning that is unknown to the players because part of this GM's secret backstory. And a fortiori there is certainly no obligation on the GM, in authoring the gameworld, to have regard to the concerns/interests of the players.
When I design a game world and backstory I'm doing so long before I know who will be playing in it and even longer before I know what types of characters they're going to run. I have to do it neutrally, without reference to any of that stuff...either that, or once my players signed up and generated their first characters there'd then be a multi-month wait while I designed the gameworld around them. No thanks.
Established only in your eyes, not in mine (nor, I suspect, others').Is this what you and [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] mean? As I've said, it's the nearest true thing in the neighbourhood that I can think of. But because it is basically a restatement of stuff that was already established hundreds of posts ago, I feel that it probably is not what you are saying.
Lan-"in a player-driven system how often do characters die and who gets to decide when?"-efan