Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9512235" data-attributes="member: 42582">So here's a thing: no one is disagreeing with you about this.&quot;I punch the nearest guy in the face!&quot; is a declaration of the character's deeds. It is not an attempt by the player to have their PC interact with the setting in any other way than via words and deeds.For that matter, praying to a god with the hope that they might answer is not anything more than a declaration of the character's words, and so is not an attempt by the player to have their PC interact with the setting in any way other than via words and deeds.The discussion over the last several pages of this thread has not had anything to do with characters interacting with the world via their words and deeds. It's been about who at the table is entitled/empowered to have their assumptions/ideas about what is in the world be shared by the others at the table.No one in this thread has talked about suggesting that there is someone else in the bar. They have talked about declaring that their PC punches the nearest dude! That's neither a suggestion nor a question, which was [USER=205]@TwoSix[/USER]'s original point: a preference to declare actions rather than engage in meta-level haggling.If the GM wants to respond there is no dude nearby to punch well, in some RPGs and some approaches to RPGing, that is the GM's prerogative. I tend to agree with [USER=6925338]@soviet[/USER] that a GM whose first instinct is to respond in that way is going to discourage players from being imaginative about the shared fiction.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 9512235, member: 42582"] So here's a thing: no one is disagreeing with you about this. "I punch the nearest guy in the face!" is a declaration of the character's deeds. It is not an attempt by the player to have their PC interact with the setting in any other way than via words and deeds. For that matter, praying to a god with the hope that they might answer is not anything more than a declaration of the character's words, and so is not an attempt by the player to have their PC interact with the setting in any way other than via words and deeds. The discussion over the last several pages of this thread has not had anything to do with [I]characters interacting with the world via their words and deeds[/I]. It's been about [I]who[/I] at the table is entitled/empowered to have their assumptions/ideas about what is [I]in[/I] the world be shared by the others at the table. No one in this thread has talked about [I]suggesting that there is someone else in the bar[/I]. They have talked about [I]declaring[/I] that their PC punches the nearest dude! That's neither a suggestion nor a question, which was [USER=205]@TwoSix[/USER]'s original point: a preference to [I]declare actions[/I] rather than engage in meta-level haggling. If the GM wants to respond [I]there is no dude nearby to punch[/I] well, in some RPGs and some approaches to RPGing, that is the GM's prerogative. I tend to agree with [USER=6925338]@soviet[/USER] that a GM whose first instinct is to respond in that way is going to discourage players from being imaginative about the shared fiction. [/QUOTE]

Verification