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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8138655" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I think that this touches on an important part. Yes, in many ways, I think a lot of the conflict in this discussion is based around where power normally resides among participants of the game; with the GM, or with the players. I think [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] is simply pointing out how some examples of players wielding narrative control have existed all along. It's not that folks who are advocating for a more traditional, D&Desque mode of play have a problem with the concept.....it's more that they are incredibly selective about where it applies. So, no one minds if a PC who is lost in the desert succeeds at a Survival check and then finds an oasis. But if a Survival or Wilderness check is used to determine the terrain north of the swamps, that's somehow problematic?But why? It seems to me that they're both geographical elements determined by a skill check. Perhaps it's a question of scope? An oasis is a feature of a desert, where as hills may be seen as an entire region unto themselves. But that's pretty flimsy. Maybe because the GM can add an oasis to his map easier than hills? This honestly seems to only exist because of the deeply rooted expectation that the GM is the one who draws the map, and the players are therefore limited to what's been pre-determined on the map. There's a lot of potential conflict in how all these elements are established and handled.Yes, it can be a bit different. Again, I think it's familiar because there are similar game elements where they just accept that that's the way it works (the Survival check, the Gather Information check, etc.), but it can seem different because traditionally, the GM decides. And no, the players are not literally shaping the world just as there is not any literal remembering going on.But if they are familiar with that style of play, they'd have simply answered you, or made a roll, or done whatever other response is used to determine these things. It's the lack of familiarity that causes many to think there is a way it "must be". Should folks not discuss what actually is because some people are not aware of that? I would say no.So would you say that Hillfolk gave players more authority over the fiction? Not better authority, but more? Honestly, that's all that the matter of agency is about.Not really. What you've described is the player remembering a detail shared with him by the GM. What if the GM hasn't shared with the PCs what's north of the swamp yet? But the PC has been established as knowing the region. Does the GM substitute as the PC's memory? So that the player has to consult the GM the way the PC would consult his mind? If so, would you say that the GM or the player has agency here? In real life, I don't have to consult anyone else to decide what I know or remember.If the player is allowed to say "Being familiar with the area, I know that there are hills to the north, and we can escape the swamps and the lizardmen there" (and I'd expect this declaration to be tied to a check of some kind, or other use of mechanics) isn't this a case of the player having more agency over the fiction?You're arguing that there are no limits, while saying that these limits are simply the way people play. It's a kind of a confused argument.</blockquote>

Verification