Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8146101" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, yeah, I can see some parallel in that the PLAYER might assume that his PC is sure that the Lady believes him. Does the PLAYER believe that? We don't really know... So, sure, the character might, fictionally, feel betrayed later and duped if it turns out she's playing him, but this is not an entirely implausible narrative either. Yes, the GM could 'retcon' it that way. I don't think I find this INHERENTLY to deny agency. It MIGHT. For example: Later in the game the PC has achieved various successes based on his relationship with Lady Askol. Suddenly this relationship is revealed to be false, through no action declared by the player. I would not call this fair play. However, that could change if, say, there were indications to the contrary. Heck, the PLAYER may be fully cognizant of this betrayal, and the PC is not. You could play a scenario like that, and that would be fine. Even assuming the PC and the Player have the same beliefs, if they now build more on the lie and make it seem even less plausible (further instances of Psionics use that are hard to explain for example) then calling in the player's chips becomes less dubious.I think, often, there is a lot of grey in these kinds of questions. Retcons don't bother me, inherently. Only if the GM gives the player solid evidence of something and then contradicts it later, then that is dirty pool.</blockquote>