Search results

Your ability to influence play of a game as a player is different than your ability to influence the real world as a person. There's only this confusion over RPGs because part of play includes portraying a fictional character. This is why, to examine agency, you have to set aside the character...

Just saw this after sending my previous post. This is a huge part of what I'm talking about. Just being aware of how we as GMs control the flow of information, and so, doing our best to make sure the players have sufficient information to actually play. It doesn't always have to be all the...

What about information a character might have? Who decides if something is a yes, no, or maybe as far as a character (and therefore a player) knowing it? Do you think you as a GM tend to offer sufficient information to your players to match or at least approximate what a character would be...

No, I think your comments here and what you've been arguing for reveal a misunderstanding of what those things are about. It is about freely giving information. It is about sharing information with them as much as possible. If there's even a way they know it, just tell them and the like. It also...

I'm not talking about negative motivations. I'm talking about what happens if we don't allow the unwanted to be possible in play. If the GM is making all decisions and the unwanted is not allowed to happen, then the GM is just telling the players a story. If the player is making all decisions...

Okay... that's your preference, and as far as preferences go, it's fine. All anyone is saying is that others have other preferences. I personally don't want to know every detail about my character before play begins regardless of what game I'm playing. It also doesn't correspond to the way...

Do you think that being "able to make decisions from the perspective of their characters with what feels like the same degree of reliability as the characters would have" is supported by the GM sharing information or hiding information? Do you think that a GM will typically provide enough...

Well, if you rolled low, then it would mean your character wasn’t as brave/loyal/hard/whatever as they thought they were. It’s been said (I won’t mention by who, but his name rhymes with Shmincent Shmaker) that RPGs have rules to allow for the unwanted result to occur. That’s what play is...

Okay… then how do you determine if you’re playing the GM? You said And so I asked what that meant. But it seems you don’t know?

I don’t see how those examples display consistency. They’re mostly unrelated hypotheticals. If you were in a game, how would you know the GM is being consistent in their adjudications? If there are unknown factors at play, how can you know? The criteria aren’t available to you.

It’s a matter of play focus. Some games want the character’s determination or courage or loyalty or whatever other trait to be tested. Depending on the game, these traits may be highlighted in some way by the player as what they want to learn about in play. If you want to learn if your...

I said nothing about certainty. Consistently in what way? And how can you determine consistency if the process is unknown? These seem like legitimate questions, no?

What does this mean? Consistently in what way? How do you know if it’s consistent if you aren’t aware of all the factors that play into his decision making?

I'm not passing judgment on it. It's a matter of preference. Some games I play don't allow the GM that amount of authority (or at least, if they do, it's checked in other ways), other games I play do allow it. There may be reasons for playing one game over the other depending on the desired...

Oh, I don't know what the specifics were... I just remember you talking about PCs going about a town and painting it or some such. Whatever it was, it did not appear to have any consequences at all... and I believe that was the point of the story. Yes, that's fine of course. But by now you...

Please stop telling me what I like and dislike. I have told you repeatedly that I sometimes play games very much like the ones you're talking about. It's not about liking or disliking. It's about recognizing what is happening at the table, and what the design choices allow to happen at the...

But my Paladin Sir Felgar would slaughter creatures by the dozen and never struggle with it in any way and he was a paragon of righteousness!

Yes, in context of its potential impact on a larger view of play. Like when you consider all those kinds of things I mentioned in my post, and possibly many other factors. If a GM decides that a guard or group of guards is unfailingly loyal, why is he doing so? What does it mean for the...

Yes, I understand that. But, the way I see it, is that what you're arguing for allows for all those things I said. That all of that is potentially the GM's choice. ALL OF IT. Yes, you don't want him to actually do it all simultaneously in such a way as to block players, as you say here... yet...

Come on, Lanefan. You've been involved in these conversations for literally years. Have you really not realized by now that folks play games for different reasons? Is it really so hard to imagine other approaches to play? Especially when years' worth of explanations and examples have been...