Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 7916864" data-attributes="member: 6696971">This is a great question and a great way to focus conversation.  Thanks for asking it.Here is what I would say as it relates to systemization of the type we're discussing in this thread.There are 3 types of possible agency here:Type 1 - The GM has their sayObstacle/adversity/threat interposes itself between player and goal.Type 2 - Player has their sayMy character thinks/feels/does x.  This requires no mediation by GM or by rules.  It is now true in the fiction. This can be either (a) GM says "yes" or (b) outright fiat (the player has a move/feature that binds the GM to oblige new relevant fiction based upon it; When you enter an important location (your call) you can ask the GM for one fact from the history of that location.).However, there is another kind. (c) The GM presents the player with a difficult but interesting choice between outcome a or outcome b (both which have clear attendant fiction which changes the situation).  Once the player chooses, the fiction emerges accordingly. Type 3 - The system has its saySally the Druid has the move Elemental Mastery.  She rolls 2d6 + Wis (2) to find out what happens when she calls on the primal spirits of fire, water, earth or air to perform a task for her.  She outright fails with a 6 or less (and marks xp).The GM now must make a hard move against the player bound by the rules/principles/play agenda (something that has an immediate cost, changes the situation dynamically for the worse, fills their lives with adventure, and follows from the preceding fiction).  The move says on a miss, some catastrophe occurs as a result of your calling.  That further constrains/binds the GM's new post-player-move fiction.  There is no opting out by the player or GM and no massaging the situation for better or worse.  There are specific constraints/parameters.[HR][/HR]In the entirety of this context, lets sub "player" for "participant", including both GM and those running PCs.How do you think "authorial choice" and "participant choice" relate to one another when you've got competing interests and rules/role constraints that bind or deny authorship rights?Put another way, the GM can't do x because system or built-in constraint (a players move/feature says thing n happens; GM doesn't get to ignore it or erect a block that negates it) says so.  The player can't do y because system or built-in constraint (the GM has erected an obstacle that requires overcoming a certain fictional positioning - say reach advantage by the obstacle - before the player can close to melee...the player doesn't just get to ignore that and close to melee).I would say "participant choice" is different than "authorial choice" because when you're writing a book, you don't have competing interests and system architecture that both constrains possible fiction and mediates outcomes.</blockquote>

Verification