Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8133864" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think the concept of dogmatism is misplaced here.I like playing backgammon. The rolling of dice is pretty important to play - letting a player just choose how far to move their pieces would wreck the game! That's not "dogmatic" - that's me wanting to play backgammon!Of course chess players don't roll dice - but that's because they are playing a different game.If people want to play RPGs where the GM does most of the deciding of what happens, and the players contribute narrowly-conceived of action declarations (We go to place X; we ask person Y what she's doing there; etc) but most of the outcome of the action declaration is provided by the GM either reading from his/her notes or making it up on the spot, that's their prerogative.But using different methods means that the resulting games will have different properties. A property of backgammon, compared to chess, is its randomness. A property of the sort of RPGing I just described, compared to the sort I prefer, is the higher degree of GM vs player agency.Functional for whom?Chess is functional for the chess players, but insisting to someone who wants to play backgammon that choosing how far your piece moves is perfectly functional is just sillly.I don't want to play or GM RPGs with a low degree of player agency.I've provided examples upthread, and plenty of links to actual play posts.As a player, I want the GM to engage my PC. Here's an extract from an actual play report that shows what that looked like (my PC is Thurgon; I had chosen to return to my homeland of Auxol; Aramina is Thurgon's sidekick; the system is Burning Wheel):The GM here has not come up with a quest or an adventure or a plot hook. The GM follows through on action declarations: with the successful Circles check introduces the NPC Rufus (Thurgon's brother), presented and played consistently with established backstory but also embellished in ways that the GM thinks/hopes will be interesting and provocative. As I declare further actions for Thurgon and Aramina the GM adjudicates the consequences - where they succeed (eg Aramina shaming Rufus) he honoured that; where they failed (eg the attempts to Command Rufus) he narrates the failure in ways that he intends to drive things forward (Rufus turns into something like a Wormtongue character - though we don't yet know who "the master" is).As a GM, I do the same sorts of things. There are differences across systems - eg in Prince Valiant I want to present opportunities for gallant errantry; in Traveller I want to present worlds for the PCs to travel to in their starship - but the core is following and building on player goals for their PCs.</blockquote>

Verification