Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6422670" data-attributes="member: 42582">The mount is a character resource.But it is not created by the character (contrast 3E, where the "pokemount" is created by the character). It's existence in the game, and it's availability to the character, is dicated by the player. Hence why Hussar has correctly identified this as an instance of a player in AD&D exercising authorial control over the content of the shared fiction which extends beyond the ingame causal capacities of his/her PC.Here is the relevant text from Gygax's DMG (p 18):When the paladin reaches 4th level or higher, he or she will eventually call for a warhorse . . . It wil magically appear, but not in actual physical form. The paladin will magically "see" his or her faithful destrier in whatever locale it is currently in . . . The creature might be wild and necessitate capturing, or it might be guarded by an evil fighter of the same level as the paladin, and the latter will then have to overcome the former in mortal combat . . .In otherwords, when the player decides to have his/her PC "call for a warhorse", it becomes true in the fiction that there exists a warhorse waiting for the paladin to come and get it via a quest of "some small difficulty which will take a number of days, possbly 2 or more weeks, and will certainy test the mettle of the paladin" (DMG p 18).This a player exercising (modest) authorial control over the setting.The point is that the GM is obliged, at the behest of the player, to make it true that, in the gameworld, there is a warhorse waiting to be obtained by questing. But the paladin didn't make it true that the warhorse exists: the paladin calling for his/her warhorse doesn't create a warhorse and a 4th level evil fighter to guard it. If there is any causal power at work here, it is the power of the paladin's deity - so, in effect, by calling for his/her warhorse the player of the paladin gets to dictate certain actions of his/her PC's deity.If a GM says yes to a player's quesion whether the NPC is bearded or their are boxes in the alley, the player has (by declaring a Perception check, if you want to make it mechanically very formal) encouraged the GM to play certain NPCs one way (non-shavers; garbage dumpers) rather than another way.The stucture is fairly similar, except in the paladin case the GM is obliged to introduce the setting element, whereas in the beard or box case some of us are saying that it can make for better play if the GM says yes to the player.I agree that the players are not expected to have widespread control over the contents of the setting outside their PCs.But it's not at all clear that they have none (and I don't think you're disagreeing with that). Who creates the PCs' families? That is left up for grabs. If the player rolls on the Secondary Skills table (DMG p 12), there is nothing that suggests that the player is not free to explain how it is that his/her PC came to possess that ability.Another example that complements [MENTION=22779]Hussar[/MENTION]'s examples around paladins, druids and monks is that of the MU or Illusionist: by choosing to play such a character, the player makes it true in the world that there is a mentor from whom his/her PC learned spells and acquired a spellbook (DMG, p 39):Inform those players who have opted for the magic-user profession that they have just completed a course of apprenticeship with a master who was of unthinkably high level (at least 6th!). . . . [M]aster (or mistress) was kind enough to prepare a special present for the character before he or she goes out into the world to seek his or her fortune. . . . [namely, the character's first level spell book]. All illusionist spell books and scrolls are written in a secret tongue which every apprentice learns from his or her mentor.As for what is within the GM's purview:This is not what Moldvay says. He says that the GM should create a dungeon which gives the players (via their PCs) a reason to adventure - not that the players should create PCs that fit with the GM's world.Also, so far from the GM having no infuence, both Moldvay and Gygax state that the GM will tell the players which dungeon they were exploring. That is not "zero influence". That is telling the players where their PCs are going!Individual tables might of course approach the game differently, but there is a default approach specified in the books. For instance, here is how Gygax outlines the opening of the first session for new players (DMG p 96):You inform them that there is a rumor in the village that something strange and terrible lurks in the abandoned monastery not far frm the place. . . . <s>o the adventure begins.</s> <s></s> <s>You inform them that after about a two mile trek along a seldom-used road they come to the dege of a fen. A narrow causeway leads out to a low mound upon which stand the walls and building of the deserted monastery.</s><s></s><s></s><s>Now that's not exactly "story now", but it's not simpy the GM describing a world, either. It's the GM framing the PCs into a situation of adventure - an abandoned monastery waiting to be explored.</s><s></s><s>Moldvay, with his suggestion that the players shoud have "a reason for adventuring", is clearly envisaging that the framing will be at least a little bit more dramatically compelling. In the Puffin book What is Dungeons & Dragons? (1982, and more familiar, I think, to old-time players in the Commonwealth orbit than in the US), the example magic-user PC is described as having the following background: "a sorceress from one of the nomad tribes of the Mesta Desert [who was u]nfairly accused of witchcraft [and so] slipped away to join the College of Magicians under Dokhon. She has a violent aversion to the necromancers of the rival college of Khan and their servants of living stone, the rockmen" (p 7). And the sample dungeon contains rockmen. They are not doing anything very interesting, but they are there. Again, not "story now", but there is a clear idea that the GM, in authoring and presenting the backstory, will have regard to the interests and inclinations of the players.</s><s></s><s>It can also be done by giving the player what s/he wants.</s><s></s><s>When the Traveller rules (Book 3, p 19) state that "The referee is always free to impose encounters to further the cause of the adventure being played; in many cases, he actually has a responsibility to do so" and also state that "Encounters with non-player characters . . . also serve as a method for players to gain comrades, weapons, vehicles or assistance where necessary," do you think they were ruling out that a referee, in determining what encounters occur, might have regard to the desires of the players?</s></blockquote>

Verification