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: 8138340" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, unfortunately you failed in what you were trying to do. Because you expressed your conception of what is "normal" by describing the "atypical" in ways that mischaracterises it, at least from my perspective. That was the point of my post. In the rest of this post I will attempt to explain, again, why I say that.[USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] gave the example of the GM asking the player of the ranger what is to the north of the swamp? and the player of the ranger answering hills.The examples of action declaration that I gave in my post were ones that I have referred to extensively in this thread: my success on a check (of Circles, an attribute of Burning Wheel PCs) prompted by my action declaration I keep my eyes open for my brother Rufus as we enter the border of Auxol meaning that the GM narrates an encounter with Rufus; my success on a check (of Great Masters-wise, a knowledge skill of my Burning Wheel PC's sorcerer sidekick) prompted by my action declaration Isn't Evard's tower around here somewhere - I'm looking for it leading the GM to narrate that Evard's tower is in the area and is come upon my PC and his sidekick.The examples prompted discussions that you have weighed in to about "players creating things out of thin air" ([USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]) and "players exercising narrative power or engaging in narrative perspective/stance" ([USER=7025508]@Crimson Longinus[/USER]). I pointed out that Gygax contemplated this sort of thing in his DMG, quoting his discussion of the process of a player's PC establishing a stronghold, and you posted in response to that suggesting that Gygax there was identifying a non-standard or marginal instance of action declaration.I'm sure it's true that these examples involve the player exercising more control over the content of the fiction than some RPGers are use to. I would also add: given that control and agency in this context are near enough to synonyms, it's no great surprise that [USER=82106]@AbdulAlhazred[/USER] has characterised that greater control as greater agency, and that [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] has tended to agree.I am not in this post, nor my previous one to which you posted three responses, expressing a view on what scope of control is good or bad. I am pointing out how loaded your description of it is. You characterised these sorts of action declarations as leading to (i) agency the player can exert on the world itself that contrasts with (ii) agency through their character that consists in players being able to make meaningful choices within a setting (the three italicised phrases in this sentence are direct quotes of you).My point is that these sorts of action declarations are, in the games in which they occur, precisely instances of players exercising agency through their characters by making meaningful choices within a setting. Or to be more concise: they are examples of a player playing his/her PC. When (in AbdulAlhazred's example) the GM asks the player of the ranger to answer what is to the north of the swamp? this is not an out-of-game request to a player to draw a map. It is an in-game demand that the player play his/her PC by evincing his/her PC's knowledge. When the player answers, s/he is answering in character. The question is a version of what do you do? where the action performed is recollecting and evincing knowledge.My further point was that you can't distinguish these sorts of examples of playing the character (recollecting facts about geography or wizard's towers; hoping to meet one's brother) by saying that they establish facts about the world other than the character. Because nearly every action declaration, if successful, does that. A declaration I attack the Orc with my mace, if successful, establishes facts about the world other than the character (eg it establishes that the orc failed to dodge or to turn aside the blow by blocking with a shield). A declaration (in 3E D&D) that I use Gather Information skill to learn what's been happening recently in town, if successful, establishes facts about the world other than the character (eg that there are locals hanging about and gossiping). A declaration that I forage for food so we don't die of starvation in the wilderness, if successful, establishes facts about the world other than the character (eg that there is sufficient food available to be eaten by the PC and his/her companions - this example I owe to [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER]).You are using a conception of what it is "normal" for a player to be able to influence or not influence, beyond the character, via action declaration - I am guessing that the roll to hit, the survival check, and the gather information check would all fall on the "normal" side of your divide; it's clear that the knowledge check about a wizard's tower, or the answer to the GM's question about the character's geographical knowledge, fall on the "atypical" side of your divide; you haven't (as far as I know) expressed a view about the Circles check or the similar ability that players of yakuza PCs have in AD&D Oriental Adventures.My point is that you are expressing that conception by drawing a distinction between playing ones PC and directly establishing facts about the gameworld that is (from my point of view) utterly untenable and wildly mischaracterises my RPGing experiences. Given that in previous posts in this thread you have been critical of people presenting advocacy for their preferences in the language of neutral description, I thought it appropriate to draw this to your attention.</blockquote>

Verification