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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 8140803" data-attributes="member: 85870">So, this is interesting . . . because this entire "meta" player decision runs entirely contrary to the whole idea of "absolute fidelity to the fiction and characters." If we're treating our characters as "real" within the fiction, no one in within the actual fiction is going to say word one if one of the characters wants to do a thorough examination of options and risks before taking action.But if that supposed "objective reality" starts to conflict with the metagame reality of players being bored, it's totally okay to rule in favor of the metagame reality of "get the bloody game moving."So how is this any different than simply letting players "get the bloody game moving" through the actual game mechanics, PC build elements, and action declarations?So it's always the duty of the player to subsume what they'd really like to explore, either thematically or in-fiction? Everyone's just supposed go along in an extended Abilene paradox, where no one really gets to enjoy exploring an aspect of the fiction/character that's interesting to them, because the GM's just decided that "well, the objective reality of the game world just doesn't allow for that"?Well, yes, it's definitely hidden backstory -- in-fiction events, determined by the GM, which occur without input vis-a-vis the players. And sure, it's fun as a GM to occasionally throw out some unforeseen surprise.But truthfully, in many circumstances, it's an indulgence on the GM's part.Was the question ever asked, "Will my players enjoy this conflict/obstacle, or would they much rather be experiencing something else?"Given the choice, would the players rather have proceeded on to something that felt more dramatically interesting and relevant to the stakes of their characters, or their personal interests? And how would they signal such interest to the GM?The truth is, if the players weren't interested in this particular conflict/obstacle, then it's the GM just being indulgent. There's a million ways to skip past this event if the players weren't really interested in it . . . but it happened anyway by the choice of the GM.Which is fine --- but hopefully the GM has the awareness on some level that it is, in fact, an indulgence on their part.Maybe the the GM does it because this set of events is just more fun for him or her--(S)he just wants to play around with a fun set of encounter mechanics or abilities, or a fun NPC they want to toy around with. Maybe the GM is willing to sacrifice the enjoyment of their players to maintain "fidelity to the illusion of objective reality," because "that's totally what would happen in the fiction right now, and I must maintain that illusion."Regardless of the reason, it's a case of the GM actively prioritizing some other interest above the enjoyment of the players. And if the players are okay with that, great! Some players are totally fine with the knowledge that the GM is going to regularly place other needs/agendas above their own enjoyment of the game. It's been that way since 1974, and will probably be that way in 2074.And I suppose that there are some players that are willing to sacrifice some of their own dramatic interests in the name of maintaining "fidelity to the illusion of objective reality."To which I say, "More power to them." I'm just no longer one of those players.*Edit --- One additional thought: The more I think of it, the concept of "agency" in RPG play ultimately comes down to this question --- how much ability does a player have to actively pursue and engage with ideas/themes/elements of interest within the fictional construct of play, and through what means is that ability derived?</blockquote>

Verification