Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8162655"><p>The whole reason we are making this distinction of realness is to show that something is established in the setting, and the players have agency to explore it. I fail to see how something that is established in the 'shared fiction' is less real than something the GM has pinned down in the setting as existing, which if the players find it, they will discover, and if they don't, they will not. This is important because it means the choices the players make around this discovery matter. I am not saying this is the only way to do things. But I am saying, you guys keep defining things in a way that defines our style out of the agency conversation. And since agency is a priority of our style, I think fighting over the meaning of real and existing in the game, is important here. The game isn't just what everyone at the table agrees is going on in the setting. The game is stuff the players don't see or know about. Even something random, like an encounter table, exists as potential in the game. But stuff the GM has definitively hammered out and placed: that exists in the game.</p></blockquote><p></p>