The player in this example wanted to both describe what they wanted to do (#2) and narrate the outcome (#3), violating the play loop. But when the referee followed the play loop and narrated the outcome (#3), the player was dissatisfied.
Player: "I want to use my Folk Hero feature to find shelter with the common people (#2) and successfully hide from the Duke's men thereby avoiding a confrontation (#3)."
Referee: "Okay. You find shelter with the common people. But as the feature explicitly says, 'They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you.' The Evil Duke's men are threatening to massacre the townspeople unless they surrender you, so someone gave you up to save the lives of all the innocent people in the town."
No, you’re incorrect. I didn’t want to narrate the outcome. I stated (explicitly) what I wanted to do and what I wanted out of it.
The dissatisfaction comes from not having any additional input on the matter. That no process beyond the GM deciding was involved in the outcome.
We had taken shelter with the farmer, hiding in the loft in his barn, before any of the Duke’s men arrived in the town. There was a local sheriff, but we avoided him and he would not have known us anyway. The bit you added about the Duke’s men threatening the farmer didn’t happen. No further checks were called for, no further information was shared beyond that the Duke’s men arrived in town and went to the Inn.
I would have no problem if there were relevant factors that changed the outcome in some way. If play continued, with more information, more rolls, and so on. But that’s not what happened. Instead, the GM decided that we were discovered somehow (but didn’t specify how), and in the morning the Duke’s men had surrounded the farm and called out for our surrender.
When I talked to the GM afterward, he said he thought it would be cool to have a scene like the end of “Young Guns” where the heroes are trapped in a burning farmhouse surrounded by enemies. He felt that granting us a long rest was sufficient reward for my use of the Folk Hero ability.
Ultimately, he had an idea about the way things should go, and so that’s how they went. His conception of the fiction won out.
This is also why being explicit rather than implicit about goals when making declarations is a great idea. If the player had said their goal up front, the referee could have the opportunity to clarify the situation and the player could have the opportunity to rethink or rework and restate their declaration. It sounds like a mismatch of (unstated) expectations. In the player's head things should logically play out one way but in the referee's head things logically played out another. That's why you openly communicate your goals as a player up front, so you can talk with the referee about the likelihood of the outcome you're after.
I did communicate openly. We discussed as a group what we wanted to do. One player wanted to set an ambush, another wanted to continue on past the town. I suggested a way that could avoid a fight with the Duke’s men, and proposed my Folk Hero ability. Everyone was on board, and the GM seemed impressed and asked me to read the ability.
I seemed to be granted what I wanted, only for it to turn out to be very different than I expected
without any further information to indicate that would be the case.
That last bit is key, hence the italics.
This quote begins with a claim of no ill intent, but ends with the claim that the referee is negating the player's agency to preserve the referee's plans...all because an attempted action did not play out exactly as the player wanted.
Yes. The GM had no ill intent and without violating the procedures of play, greatly reduced the effect of an ability I used. Not through some failure on my part, or a low dice roll, or subsequent fictional factors. But just because he didn’t see the big deal and he had ideas he thought would be cool, so those ideas are what happened.
This is why you go on to talk about “wiggle room” with certain abilities. Interestingly enough, not combat abilities or spells. In those instances, the GM doesn’t have any wiggle room to just have them work in a way he wants. Combat works the way it does, spells work the way they do. The GM has influence on them, but not nearly as much as in social encounters and similar exchanges. This is what I’ve been saying all along.
This is why combat and spell use are far less susceptible to Mother May I. The clear and observable rules. The fact that there’s far less wiggle room for the GM to just maintain his ideas about the fiction.
