Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8156922" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm failing to make sense of how you're characterising the "frame" or the "world". The door is part of it. So is the Orc's death. I don't think cinema theory mandates that the world be defined in terms of things rather than events rather than states of affairs.EDIT: My point being that the fiction - whether that is a composite of things and/or events and/or states of affairs and/or processes - has to be authored. Elements that make up the composite get introduced. In the context of a shared fiction that power will be distributed. It is - I assert - not possible to distinguish between the power to introduce a death of an Orc and the power to introduce discovery of a way through a wall in terms of authorial process. Reference to diegetic frames or internal worlds will not change that. (And the authorship obviously happens in the real world, not in the imagined world.)The difference can only be explained in terms of subject matter/topic.FURTHER EDIT: I agree that some people are happy to let the player be able to make decisions that oblige the whole table to accept that the Orc is dead, but want decisions that oblige the whole table to accept that the wall has a secret way through it to be under the purview of the GM.My point is that those decisions aren't different in terms of "narrative power" or authorial/storytelling logic.</blockquote>