Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7917998" data-attributes="member: 29398">It's a very long time since I agreed with [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] on much but what's said here is bang on.Playing through a character's arc - which may or may not involve significant changes to said character - might rarely if ever involve 'risk' and might never need to touch the game rules.And to follow on: correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems 'risk' in this context is being used as shorthand for 'potential for forced changes to a character's feelings or emotions that its player doesn't necessarily want'; which means I'm in effect risking my agency over my character.Don't get me wrong - I'm not for a second suggesting my character's arc should always go smoothly and have everything neatly fall into place.&nbsp; There'll be failures along the way, possibly up to and including complete failure to reach or even get close to whatever end goal I've set, and that's just part of the game.What I'm advocating for is the right to retain control over my character even in a failure situation - let me as its player determine how it reacts in-character to said failure, and-or determine what it does next, rather than having my reaction forced on me by the game system (or worse, the GM).The same applies if I am the GM: what my NPCs do-say-think should as far as possible* not be system-forced but should come instead from what that character is and how it perecives the situation.* - I throw this qualifier in to acknowledge that not every NPC the party meets is going to have a fully fleshed out characterization or personality.&nbsp; Those that do, however, should be able to ignore the forced-resolution mechanics just like a PC can.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lanefan, post: 7917998, member: 29398"] It's a very long time since I agreed with [USER=177]@Umbran[/USER] on much but what's said here is bang on. Playing through a character's arc - which may or may not involve significant changes to said character - might rarely if ever involve 'risk' and might never need to touch the game rules. And to follow on: correct me if I'm misinterpreting, but it seems 'risk' in this context is being used as shorthand for 'potential for forced changes to a character's feelings or emotions that its player doesn't necessarily want'; which means I'm in effect risking my agency over my character. Don't get me wrong - I'm not for a second suggesting my character's arc should always go smoothly and have everything neatly fall into place. There'll be failures along the way, possibly up to and including complete failure to reach or even get close to whatever end goal I've set, and that's just part of the game. What I'm advocating for is the right to retain control over my character even in a failure situation - let me as its player determine how it reacts in-character to said failure, and-or determine what it does next, rather than having my reaction forced on me by the game system (or worse, the GM). The same applies if I am the GM: what my NPCs do-say-think should as far as possible* not be system-forced but should come instead from what that character is and how it perecives the situation. * - I throw this qualifier in to acknowledge that not every NPC the party meets is going to have a fully fleshed out characterization or personality. Those that do, however, should be able to ignore the forced-resolution mechanics just like a PC can. [/QUOTE]

Verification