Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6679952" data-attributes="member: 42582">In <a href="http://www.darthsanddroids.net/episodes/1234.html" target="_blank">this Darths & Droids episode</a>, which person at the table got to engage the mechanical process that resulted in the narration of the various gates, and their status as shut?From a retelling of the infiction events, you can't tell. From knowing that the table consisted of some players with their PCs, plus a GM, you can't tell. Even if you know that Luke's player made a Perception (or Architecture, or whatever) check, you still can't tell.That's why I said, upthread, that the difference in play approaches here isn't about the "objectivity" of the gameworld, nor the correlation of skill checks with in-fiction efforts/activities by the character. It's about processes for generating the shared fiction.In my Burning Wheel game on the weekend, the PCs were negotiating with a naga to gain access to the pool of water it was guarding (the only water source they knew of in the desert they were stuck in). The naga declared that "only the worthy" might drink from its pool; and it had killed several unworthy orcs who had tried to get to the water.The PCs wanted to know whether or not they were worthy. One of the players asked to make a History check, to recall stories of whom the worthy might have been in the past. I was happy to allow a History check, but insisted that the player tell me what he hoped the worthy might have been in the past. In other words, I was not going to dictate whether or not the PCs exemplified what had been worthy in the past - in effect, decide whether they are winners or losers, and then have the History check determine whether or not they know themselves to be winners or losers.The player explained what he hoped the history was - which (i) framed the PCs as winners rather than losers, and (ii) touched upon various topics that would give him a bonus to his check (eg because his hoped-for history involved a past threat of apocalypse, he got to add a bonus from his "Apocalypse-wise" skill). The dice were then rolled, and the check was a success - so that was the history. Had it failed, as GM I would have had to dictate the true history, which would have been some sort of departure from or variant on the desired history that left the PCs in a compromised or complicated situation.There's no lack of pretence that the gameworld is objective. It's about techniques of authoring and dispensing backstory.</blockquote>

Verification