Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Theory of Games" data-source="post: 9662622" data-attributes="member: 7042201">That's one way to envision it, not the only way. Also, that term "boardstate" comes from boardgames and some CCGs, so it needs clear definition as it applies to ttrpgs.Games dominated by GM Fiat are less about ttrpg rules and more about group playstyle. Some groups allow for PCs to reshape the setting via their actions, while others depend on the GM affect setting changes. Again, depends on the group.This makes sense, again, with a group that depends on the GM to create setting change. I've been the GM in groups like that and the cause was most of the players in those groups had no interest in their PCs having goals that changed the setting. All players don't have the same playstyles and different playstyles means different victory conditions.This statement makes zero sense."Living Campaigns" have existed in the ttrpg hobby for at least forty years. You can find them easily online with a simple search of "living campaigns". There's even a Wikipedia page for them. I've played in a few temporarily so I have actual experiences with campaigns where I can perform actions with my PC that change the campaign setting. So, it isn't utter nonsense. What IS utter nonsense is dismissing the play experiences of others just to make a point.Many ttrpgs allow GMs "Fiat", which enables the GM to make changes to rules or setting. But, GM Fiat does not allow a GM to make decisions for the players and their characters. That falls under Player Agency. It seems like you're confusing the parameters of the two concepts (GM Fiat and Player Agency).What's correct is, playing ttrpgs can be fun with or without a GM. Also, you're assuming random tables are "reliable processes" but often those tables can generate results that make no sense for a given scene, hence designers advising GMs to ignore random results to maintain setting or scene consistency.Your arguement, especially that last sentence, shows you have an anti-GM bias that's clearly clouding your logic here.</blockquote>

Verification