Search results

This is functionally identical to the player having author stance, imo. I raised the same point in my post.

Hmm. I follow the discussion of why the stances differ, and I agree narrative games have different meta assumptions regarding goals. But I don't see it as fixing the problem. I think the mechanism is based on player, not character, because you alter things in a way the character could never do.

I think it is can be equally true if someone else authors that part of the fiction, but it depends a lot on how the fiction is authored. @Enrahim had some nice posts about this a while back. From what I recall, the point is that the GM is constrained in authoring that part of the fiction by the...

It might be better to pick a different one. There are clearly two different conceptions of agency...and both sides think their method leads to more agency. Perhaps we can frame them as agency as player and agency as character. When I as a player say "my character examines these runes" or "my...

Well, I have. The calvinball point was specifically in response to: The point is that the GM deciding on the runes doesn't result in less player agency because power and agency often conflict. It's not Orwellian doublethink to say that. In the specific case of the runes, I think they result...

Yes I think this is reasonable. I don't like the players having much control over the background of the world, but no worries. Imagine the rune example cast in this way. When you try to decipher some ancient script, roll +smart. On a 10+, choose what they say... This is functionally what I...

It is poor DMing for producing the kind of gameplay I enjoy. I will accordingly not enjoy a game where someone runs it like that. That does not mean the style is objectively poor or that no one can enjoy it. I'm sure you are a great GM! You run fun games that people enjoy! You don't need to...

The rune example is exactly what I have in mind here.

Go back to the Aristotelian idea I set up a while back...the right amount of improvising is 'some'. If you're improvising everything, it will not be enjoyable for some players (i.e., me.). If you improvise nothing, you aren't getting many benefits from RPGing. I think I've mentioned that it...

I don't think this is right. It is meaningfully different because if the character improves in an unrelated skill, then in one case they are less likely to encounter cooks and in the other case just as likely.

And two comments I thought that revealed things in a particular salient way. @pemerton doesn't mean this positively, but I think it correctly characterizes my view. If the players actions are changing the shared fiction they don't matter, because tomorrow they could change the shared fiction...

Second, regarding changing the fiction, there are some misunderstandings about how fixed the world can be. I don't agree with your assumptions about play in d&d. "Cliff, DC 15, crumbly" gives you all of the information you need to narrate. I've heard and given descriptions like this. But...

Let me pull out some salient points. First, I argued that narrative games do not allow you to 'play to win' in the same way trad games do. @hawkeyefan claims it doesn't need to clash with immersion and @pemerton asks what winning looks like in narrative games. To the first point, I think this...

Agreed! If the presence is fixed, then the roll could, in principle, have been rolled at any time. I could do it years in advance, days, second, or seconds after. It feels like we are discovering something together. If it depends on player skill, then I can't -- it can only be determined at...

Cliff - DC 15, unstable rocks. Fixed. On a 1-in-6 chance, a guard is present. Fixed. A cook may or may not be present, depending on whether the player hits a 10+. Not fixed. Modified by the PCs skill.

Yeah, this is one point of disconnect. If the players in your game are not trying to win, if the social contract underlying it says that trying to win is bad form--then yeah, that's part of why it doesn't appeal to me. In a narrative system "playing to win" clashes with the feeling of immersion...

The game world isn't being changed. The crumbly rocks were there beforehand and are there afterward, as evidenced by the DC of the check. The cook, may or may not be before and either is or isn't there after. If a second player tries to sneak it, the cook's presence has been established. But the...

I don't think "simulationism" is the best term for what people are looking for in fixed world play. People didn't like "verisimilitudinous" either. So I'll stick with fixed world. I've used it throughout and no one has complained yet :)

Well, it is being changed...but I'll accept your terminology because nothing hinges on it, imo. I don't like play that authors key details of the world as a result of player skill checks because it inappropriately mixes the players actions with the world. This goes back to the 'random rolls are...

Let's think through how the environment relates to DCs, yeah? When the GM sets a DC, that sets certain information about the fiction--its a DC 15, so there are some weak rocks. A good climber can avoid them. A poor climber doesn't. Crucially, if a good climber makes it up, that does not...