Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6421575" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is pretty close to my approach.The key example I would compare to  [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION]'s "open or shut door?" example - it is bound up in action resolution, and so different from wondering whether or not a defeated NPC has a beard, which is the prelude to, rather than a component in the midst of, action resolution.I also think your example of the thieves, and also  [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s discussion not too far upthread about GM rights of veto, brings out a contrast between the beard case and  [MENTION=6779310]aramis erak[/MENTION]'s discussion of Blood and Honour. The beard example wasn't about a player's authority to specify the actions of another character as part of action resolution. It was about whether a GM, in exercising his/her authority over as-yet unspecified backstory, should or shouldn't have regard to known player desires.The former sort of example is clearly not very traditional - although I wouldn't be surprised if there are examples of play going a long way back in which a players has made a CHA check in order to be able to declare actions/decisions for his/her henchmen. But the latter doesn't involve any change in authority away from the traditional allocation. It's about the basis on which a GM makes decisions about backstory, not about who has the authority to make such decisions.That's why I think  [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] was right to frame it as a question about "bias". Should the GM be biased towards what the players want when it comes to declaring backstory? I think there are good reasons for answering that question yes - not universal reasons, but reasons that are worth considering for anyone who is not playing a game that prioritises exploring and gaming the setting over other considerations.I think this is widely accepted in relation to action resolution. (Though not universally, given some of the fudging threads I've read.)But the idea that the GM should be unbiased towards the players in determining backstory - ie the content of the fictional world which forms the context for the players' declarations of action for their PCs - I think is not widely accepted. Off the top off my head, I can't think of any DMG that advocates it. For instance, when Gygax talks about spell research, magic item creation, etc he at least impies that, if a player is interested in having his/her PC try this sort of stuff, then the GM should include the world elements (eg sages, high level MUs, etc) that will facilitate it, although s/he is under no obligation to make it easy for the PC to turn these world elements to his/her advantage.Similarly, Gygax implies that, when a player is having his/her PC thief establish a guild, now is the time for the GM to introduce rival guilds and the like to spice things up for that player.AD&D Oriental Adventures, which has a player dice up family, birth rank etc as part of character generation, also have advice for the GM on determining the patterns of families, alliances etc across the campaign world, with a strong implication that this is meant to matter to the PCs (and therefore the players).As I said, I really can't remember ever having read a piece of GM advice that advocates authoring the backstory without regard to what the players might find interesting. I'd be interested if anyone can point to something that I've forgotten about, or not encountered.</blockquote>

Verification