@FrogReaver liked this post:
Yet FrogReaver also seems to want to assert that a GM-driven game is not a burden on player agency.
I don't see how those two positions are to be reconciled.
A Question Of Agency?
I don't see how those two positions are to be reconciled.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
I did not. I just went back to double check and make sure it wasn't done in error. No likes from me.
hawkeyefan
Legend
Of course! Those pesky players may introduce an idea that conflicts with the things you haven’t predetermined!
I would, too. What game does this?
How do you propose this? Like, what mechanic from what rules system do you have in mind here?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Why? It feels like this is ground that's been covered numerous times. Every time an example provided of other play has evoked that feeling I've mentioned it. You were part of at least some of those discussions. Why do I need to either relist those examples or come up with a brand new one?
The game I had in mind was Houses of the Blooded. That system rolls a pool of d6s to beat a target of 10 (always 10). A player can elect to wager some of that die pool, which means he does not add them to his roll to beat the target, but instead, on a success, is allowed to narrate extra details (effects) into his success. Here's a short example from the rules:
One free Effect for beating the risk, plus one bonus effect for each wager. He can now use his additional effect
for… well, additional effects. Here’s how he uses them.
1 Effect (free for rolling 10 or higher): “I fall short of reaching the other side.”
2 Effect: “And, I land on a balcony.”
3 Effect: “And, the balcony opens to Lady Beatrix’s bedroom.”
4 Effect: “And, she offers me ‘safe passage’.”
There's another example where the player narrates finding another person in the room he's hiding in and via wagers gets to decide that it's an assassin, that he recognizes her, and what house she's from. Anyway, you get the idea.
One free Effect for beating the risk, plus one bonus effect for each wager. He can now use his additional effect
for… well, additional effects. Here’s how he uses them.
1 Effect (free for rolling 10 or higher): “I fall short of reaching the other side.”
2 Effect: “And, I land on a balcony.”
3 Effect: “And, the balcony opens to Lady Beatrix’s bedroom.”
4 Effect: “And, she offers me ‘safe passage’.”
There's another example where the player narrates finding another person in the room he's hiding in and via wagers gets to decide that it's an assassin, that he recognizes her, and what house she's from. Anyway, you get the idea.
Sorry, I should have added to the above that the d6 pool and target of 10 doesn't actually determine success, it determines privilege, which means it determines who narrates the outcome of the risk (the action). 10 or higher it's the player and less than 10 it's the GM. Players are free to narrate a failure for themselves, or whatever, so long as it makes sense in the context of the scene.
That may be true. I don't do much exploration-oriented RPGing.
As I have often pointed out, what "exploration" means in this context is learning what is in the GM's notes. A result of this is that much of the shared fiction is established by the GM, via said notes.
The amount of player agency over the shared fiction is (I think obviously) going to be less in this sort of RPGing then in RPGing in which the shared fiction is established as the outcome of action resolution.
Here is the difference between fighting and exploration in D&D. In the typical D&D process, a player can declare actions which result in death of an Orc becoming part of a fiction without that need for that to be part of the GM's notes. (There are some exceptions - see eg the discussion upthread of the DL modules as exceptions.)
In the typical D&D process, a player can declare actions which result in discovery of a secret way through a wall becoming part of a fiction only if the GM has already written that secret way into his/her notes.
This difference of RPGing processes does not map onto anything different in the authorial process of adding a dead Orc, or a discovered secret way, into a fiction. Both are exercises of "narrative power" that build on the established fiction (of their being an aggressive Orc; of their being a way-blocking wall).
I don't understand what you are saying, or what contrast you are drawing.
Generally, in a RPG the player's character will only do things in the fiction if, in the real world, the player does stuff. So eg you, a player in the real world, declare "I attack the Orc", and then roll some dice, and someone - typically the GM - performs some look-ups and changes hp tallies etc, and then we all agree that the fiction contains a dead Orc where previously it contained a live one.
To me, this seems to be an example of Campbell's point:
This is why I have consistently emphasised that, in BW, a Wises check is about a character's recollections.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
I thought you had meant I liked darkbard's quote. My apologies.
