Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7978112" data-attributes="member: 16814">I, again, disagree, but I'll add the other bits that might help understand my disagreement.  I think that the GM allowing player action declarations to curtail their resolution is a good thing, but it's not in the realm of authority.  The players still have no authority in this situation -- everything is up to the GM.  Labeling this as a mild authority gifted to the players fails, again, in any situation where the GM has prescripted an NPC or preplaced an item.  An authority that exists at the grace of the GM is no authority at all.Rather, if the GM plays in way that includes constraining outcomes to the player's action declarations, then they've established a principle of play, which is not an authority, but an added layer the constrains how an authority is used.  In this case, the GM could establish principled play by restricting outcomes to those that flow naturally from player action declarations.  I think this is a normal thing for 5e (and many other games), but it's usually unspoken and implied.  That makes in no less of a principle of play, though.  Play principles layer on top of authorities, and act as constraints to authorities, but they do not alter authorities.  Authorities are fixed things defined by who has the final, binding say.  Principles are agreements, unspoken or codified, that modify authorities by providing rails, so to speak.I think it's an important distinction in discussing games, largely to avoid the confusion of a voluntarily adopted constrain being a sharing of authority, when it really isn't, or a permissive use of authority being confused with a sharing or transfer of authority.  These things aren't actual movements of authority, but rather principles of play affecting how an authority is wielded in practice at a given table.  Some of these principles are widespread, and common, some are idiosyncratic.  None actually change the authorities in the game, regardless of game.  D&D is still a GM decides game even if the GM occasionally lets a player decide something.As a further note, principles must be coherent and at least largely consistent.  Anything else is just ad hoc, and doesn't really interact with authorities in any meaningful way.</blockquote>

Verification