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: 8147477" data-attributes="member: 42582">Right.This is why I call it "puzzle-solving" or learning what is in the GM's notes (or in his/her head).And also why it call it action resolution by reference to secret backstory - the GM draws upon unilaterally-determined and hitherto-unrevealed elements of the fiction (ie they are not yet part of any shared fiction) in order to determine whether or not an action declaration has a chance to succeed, and if it has a chance to succeed whether that chance is nevertheless less than certain with the consequence that a check is required.The matter of uncertainty appears to be decided by the GM based on a combination of extrapolation from what s/he is imagining about the fiction, and a sense of not letting the players to "get away" with anything.When play is unfolding in this way, it is hard to see that players are exercising agency. So if this is the principal mode of play, it seems that the game must be one with pretty low player agency.There is at least one further practical matter around this. One way that this sort of play can become the principal mode of play is that it requires a lot of time at the table for the players to learn what it is the GM is imagining. To give a concrete example: consider the example from my Traveller game of there being no submersibles available on Zinion. This took a few minutes at the table to establish - the players declared their interest in the possibility and I decided (I think by fiat, having regard to the world profile) that there weren't any. (Maybe I rolled some dice?)Now the players could have pushed the point by trying to use Streetwise to find an irregular/unauthorised/stolen etc submersible, but didn't. They let my call stand.But suppose that we had spent many minutes or tens of minutes roleplaying out the PCs' attempt to find an available submersible, in circumstances where I'd already determined that there wasn't one. That would have been tens of minutes of nothing but "characterisation and pantomime". Maybe with an essentially irrelevant brawl or more serious fight inserted as eg the PCs upset someone with overly pointed questions in their hunt for what the GM has already decided can't be found.That would be low-agency play.Again, fully agreed.The relevant question is not did the GM go easy by letting the players circumvent an obstacle (an obstacle that exists only in the GM's unilateral conception of the fiction). As a GM I can always come up with more stuff for us to think about as we play, some of which will absolutely put the players to the test!The relevant question is did I as GM squib the issue and allow everyone at the table to insipidly slide past what really should have been a hard moment. Which connects back to [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] and I talking about sentimentality and melodrama, and [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] just upthread articulating what it means for the GM to be a "fan" of the PCs.I'm happy to plead guilty to being softer as a GM than (I suspect) [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] is! That's probably one thing that makes Prince Valiant appeal to me - melodrama is built into it! And it's why I tend to find BW a bit gut-wrenching, as player but even more as GM because it requires me to be hard!</blockquote>

Verification