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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 8139043" data-attributes="member: 29398">That's because in real life you're combining the roles of both player and character and thus their knowledges are always exactly the same.In the game, however, there's player knowledge and there's character knowledge; and ideally these should always be close to the same as possible.  Which means in this example if the PC's been established as knowing the region then the GM should have told the player ahead of time - at least in broad strokes - what that knowledge consists of.  And a range of hills to the north counts as a pretty broad stroke in my books, meaning that because the character knew about the hills before he was asked, so should have the player.In a negative sense, yes; if those hills had not previously been established somehow.There's another conflict in terminology definition starting to rear its head here: does 'fiction' mean story or does 'fiction' mean setting?For me, I generally support the idea of players having agency over the story as pertains to their PCs.  I want them to proactively do stuff and make me react.  I want them to tell me where they're going and what they'd like to do when they get there.I do not support the idea of players having agency over the setting, nor over the story where it does not (at the moment) pertain to their PCs: those things are the purview of the GM, and while she's free to delegate this purview to players on occasion (e.g. the 1e stronghold rules, or allowing a player to write up their PC's home village) IMO she should never do so lightly and must always retain an absolute right of veto.</blockquote>

Verification