Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8509402" data-attributes="member: 71699">I imagine a DM – Jo DM – who reaches a system result in play that creates no change to the fiction that they can discern. It’s moot whether such a circumstance is possible in 5e*, because it comes about as a limit on Jo DM. Jo DM has several Dungeon Masterly virtues. They know the 5e RAW and official RAI. They’re familiar with many contemporary RPGs. They’re an active member of several gaming communities. And they are conversant with RPG principles and theory. Jo has an excellent recollection of social contract, agreements, and conversation in play up to this point among their players. And sufficient preestablished fiction for their purposes. Jo DM is bound to faithfully perform the task of reaching a meaningful narration of the said system result, that is moored in the system, and constrained or guided by relevant texts... ideally, by words in the 5e core books. Jo seeks a narrative that matters to their players. Seeking to ensure their narration is moored, Jo thinks about the following.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">What prompted the narration? Jo sees that the system result prompted it</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Ought narration deny or falsify the result? Jo knows of text putting it within a DMs power to be able to overrule rolls, which Jo balances against a view that any narration will be better moored in a result if it does not do so</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Is the admonishment to narrate meaningfully strong enough to include remote or deferred change that a result will lead to. If it is, Jo feels bound to reveal a truth about the world, or a probable or inevitable change, forecast by the result. However, Jo is incapable of discerning any change to the fiction from the said result, and that must include remote or deferred change as much as immediate.</li> </ol>Reflecting on constraints or guides as to narrated changes to the fiction, Jo considers the following.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Words throughout the text emphasising creating world that revolves around the characters, immersing them and empowering them to do awesome things</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Words throughout the text authorising DM to change as they see fit, and modify as they explore the consequences of the players actions</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">In many places Jo is aware of, consistency is emphasised</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Reaching further, Jo considers agreement at the table, good practices such as having an agenda, saying something that follows, and provoking action, and principles valued by their community</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Finally, Jo returns to their preestablished fiction, which - following guidance in the text - is extensive, while always modifiable.</li> </ol>Jo decides that while there are a vast number of things they could say, any time, the fact of their narration at this moment is caused by the result, and it is possible for them to choose between things to say based on discarding those that don't at least uphold it, and immersing and empowering the characters, exploring the consequences of their actions, saying something consistent with world, conversation, contract and agreements, following Jo’s agenda, and other good practices and valued principles.This fable has not included any definite example of a system result. Removing the limit on Jo DM, so that if a change to fiction is created, they will be capable of discerning it, can one find a realistic result - one that comes up in play - that leaves Jo unable to moor, and constrain and guide their narration? So that DM Jo's narration must be arbitrary and whimsical?</blockquote>

Verification