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: 8159135" data-attributes="member: 85870">Interestingly, I think this hearkens to something [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] was trying to get at earlier, which is that there's an important quality, or sensibility, that is derived from having a notion of "what the world is like" as a player. I believe his point was that rules systems that strongly correlate to "how my character interacts with the illusion of objective reality" are an aid to giving players more agency, because the players feel more "grounded" in the fiction.And I don't necessarily think he's wrong. Most of the best roleplaying campaigns I've been involved with have stemmed from those campaigns having this sensibility, or quality of "understanding the world." And yes, there is a greater degree of freedom involved when the player is more firmly grounded in the established illusion that underpins the fictional reality.One of the reasons I've stuck with Savage Worlds for as long as I have is that it's very easy for players to "grok" how the Savage Worlds rules interface with the fictional underpinnings. They are able to quickly grasp how their character "fits" into the world, how their character's skills and attributes point to the "fictional face" that they put on inside the world. Savage Worlds makes it very easy to intuit when a character makes an action declaration how the resulting mechanical process will translate into the in-fiction output.But now having had some experience with more player-facing systems, I'm firmly of the opinion that this is significantly more related to the players' ability to correctly place themselves within their own fictional positions than it is with the rules themselves.I've mentioned previously that this principle is one of the reasons that I strongly dislike gameplay that focuses on planar / ethereal / abyssal worlds. As a player I can never firmly grasp the underpinnings, and so I feel caught --- I have no notion of what's an "optimal" or even "allowed" character action declaration. And when this happens, I very much feel trapped, railroaded, and lacking in agency. It's basically, "Whelp, guess I'll just wait for the GM to narrate/introduce something actionable, but until then, bleh."I think [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER]'s issue is that he believes that this sensibility or quality of play is damaged or diminished by games that allow for more player-facing control of the fiction. That somehow, when a player is allowed to introduce fictional elements, that it takes away from the player's ability to apprehend the fictional underpinnings, because we've somehow unmoored the fiction in a way that makes it less understandable---and as a consequence, some player agency is removed. Reality has become "unmoored" in some fashion, and the attached element of the fiction is no longer reliably viewable as an avenue for player action, thus reducing agency.And without having ever tried systems like Dungeon World or Fate, I could completely see how that would seem like a valid concern---because it's one I shared. I couldn't wrap my head around how this wouldn't be problematic.Now having had some experience with it, I've learned that the things [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] , [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] , [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER], and [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] are saying are correct.The fictional underpinnings and player agency are not lessened, because 1) the group has agreed to let the fictional framing direct and constrain action declarations in appropriate ways, 2) the rules constrain GMs to stay within the bounds of principled play, and 3) the rules direct and push the players to frame their characters and the obstacles they face in ways that are appropriate to the character.Basically, I learned that in Dungeon World, Items 1 and 3 in the previous paragraph can correctly substitute for Savage World's task resolution system, as long as players are all on the same page about how to correctly frame their characters in the appropriate context.The main issue our group had with Dungeon World---and the reason we abandoned it after 6 or 7 sessions---is that there was one particular player who had an extremely hard time with this principle. He wanted the more prescriptive, "these are the explicit things my character can do" rules of Savage Worlds.Another note --- One of [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER]'s other objections has been the idea that players can simply handwave/"author" away obstacles as they see fit.In my experience, this is largely not the case. Once obstacles are introduced into the fiction, the players (through their characters) are obligated to deal with those obstacles through principled play (action declarations and their attendant resolutions).What this does, however, is place a large burden on the GM to only introduce obstacles that are relevant, directive, and appropriate to the concerns at hand.This was one of the points I made earlier regarding [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s introduction of the undead death cult on his players. In Dungeon World, obstacles that are not germane to the goals/directives of the players (as expressed through their characters), should only be introduced sparingly, if at all.If an obstacle is "handwaved"/authored away (or allowed to be by a player), it's because the GM recognizes that the presented obstacle is not germane to the goals of play.As a GM, it requires a very, very different mindset. It requires a significant amount of a GM "unlearning what you have learned," to quote our favorite green muppet Jedi master.Does it mean there's no wiggle room to allow for tangents, red herrings, and the occasional trivial encounter? No, not necessarily. But the basic context of Dungeon World will push hard against such things, and as so many have said, much like Blades in the Dark, it will be very, very obvious to everyone at the table what the GM is doing.</blockquote>

Verification