Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6447807" data-attributes="member: 22779">The problem here Mark CMG is your inability to accept a fairly well established example - namely fairly well supported examples of player authorship in early versions of D&amp;D - such as adding in a complete, and completely tailored adventure to a campaign through the invocation of a player.&nbsp; That it's dressed up as a character option doesn't change the fact that it is the player, pure and simple, who is adding the horse and the horse quest to the game when the player chooses to do so.&nbsp; The DM is obligated by the rules of the game to provide a tailored quest for the player with a mount at the end of that quest as a reward.The only way this could be more player authorial is if the player wrote the quest himself.&nbsp; But, by spending a game resource, i get to tell the DM, &quot;I want a mount, now, and you have to provide the opportunity for me to get it, right now.&quot;&nbsp; All the way down to the point where the mount is also pre-determined.&nbsp; You cannot even change the mount that I get.&nbsp; Or at least, there's no suggest in the rules that you should.&nbsp; Nor is there the slightest suggestion that the DM should do anything other than provide a mount quest when and if the player requests it.&nbsp; The DM certainly doesn't get to determine the timing of the quest.&nbsp; The player determines pretty much everything other than whatever opposition the DM (tailored for that specific paladin mind you) decides to toss in.You've still failed to explain how this isn't player authorship.&nbsp; So what if it's a character option.&nbsp; That doesn't matter.&nbsp; You can do the exact same thing with Fate points.&nbsp; Are you now arguing that Fate is a traditional RPG?&nbsp; You can pretend that the examples don't fit with your preconceived notions all you like, but, you still haven't been able to put up any coherent argument as to why these are not examples of player authorship, other than claiming that anything with in-game connections can't be player authorship.&nbsp; That's already been proven false.&nbsp; You can have all sorts of post hoc justifications that you like to spackle over player authorship, but, it doesn't change anything.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6447807, member: 22779"] The problem here Mark CMG is your inability to accept a fairly well established example - namely fairly well supported examples of player authorship in early versions of D&D - such as adding in a complete, and completely tailored adventure to a campaign through the invocation of a player. That it's dressed up as a character option doesn't change the fact that it is the player, pure and simple, who is adding the horse and the horse quest to the game when the player chooses to do so. The DM is obligated by the rules of the game to provide a tailored quest for the player with a mount at the end of that quest as a reward. The only way this could be more player authorial is if the player wrote the quest himself. But, by spending a game resource, i get to tell the DM, "I want a mount, now, and you have to provide the opportunity for me to get it, right now." All the way down to the point where the mount is also pre-determined. You cannot even change the mount that I get. Or at least, there's no suggest in the rules that you should. Nor is there the slightest suggestion that the DM should do anything other than provide a mount quest when and if the player requests it. The DM certainly doesn't get to determine the timing of the quest. The player determines pretty much everything other than whatever opposition the DM (tailored for that specific paladin mind you) decides to toss in. You've still failed to explain how this isn't player authorship. So what if it's a character option. That doesn't matter. You can do the exact same thing with Fate points. Are you now arguing that Fate is a traditional RPG? You can pretend that the examples don't fit with your preconceived notions all you like, but, you still haven't been able to put up any coherent argument as to why these are not examples of player authorship, other than claiming that anything with in-game connections can't be player authorship. That's already been proven false. You can have all sorts of post hoc justifications that you like to spackle over player authorship, but, it doesn't change anything. [/QUOTE]

Verification