Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Sadras" data-source="post: 6449402" data-attributes="member: 6688277">Agree, although as I have said many many posts ago, at our table the question is usually first posed to the DM perhaps out of respect or because of table style and sometimes logical suggestions are offered by the player as to why certain assumptions are made...&nbsp; 1. &quot;Are there any boxes in the alleyway? I would assume there to be empty boxes/crates, bins, something to help climb, given the traffic of the street and that the alleyway is right next to a busy inn...etc&quot;2. &quot;Does the individual have a beard, a goatee or moustache?&quot; 3. &quot;I assume a settlement of this size has a local church&quot; I would nod &quot;then I seek out an audience with the clergy....etc&quot; As DM I'm prone to say yes to stuff that makes sense for us in the setting (1 and 3) with (2), I'd probably make a roll if it is not important or not established by me.&nbsp; Personally I don't believe Trad D&amp;D has player authorship. Player Authorship to me would mean something more concrete than a paladin calling his celestial mount which has already been established by allowing that class in that setting that every paladin within this world can do. By the very fact that the DM can overrule any &quot;authorship&quot; suggests that the player authorship does not truly exist. It is an illusion.That is very different to the RPG Summerland where a success on an action taken by the character via allows the player to narrate such success for himself, the other players and the Storyteller (GM/DM). The player's narration cannot be overruled. His authorship does not require acceptance by a greater authority (i.e. the Storyteller).This is my personal definition.HOWEVERI do not challenge the claim made by others if they define that D&amp;D has player authorial control, but I do challenge such definition if it is narrowly associated it with the calling of paladin mounts, prestidigitation, action points and druid duels of AD&amp;D and the like. It is either all encompassing of all aspects of player/character actions which drive the story or nothing at all. To suggest that there are only some elements of player authorial control and exclude all other actions which twist and change the DM's story due to player/character actions creates a farce of such definition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Sadras, post: 6449402, member: 6688277"] Agree, although as I have said many many posts ago, at our table the question is usually first posed to the DM perhaps out of respect or because of table style and [U]sometimes[/U] logical suggestions are offered by the player as to why certain assumptions are made... 1. "Are there any boxes in the alleyway? I would assume there to be empty boxes/crates, bins, something to help climb, given the traffic of the street and that the alleyway is right next to a busy inn...etc" 2. "Does the individual have a beard, a goatee or moustache?" 3. "I assume a settlement of this size has a local church" I would nod "then I seek out an audience with the clergy....etc" As DM I'm prone to say yes to stuff that makes sense for us in the setting (1 and 3) with (2), I'd probably make a roll if it is not important or not established by me. Personally I don't believe Trad D&D has player authorship. Player Authorship to me would mean something more concrete than a paladin calling his celestial mount which has already been established by allowing that class in that setting that every paladin within this world can do. By the very fact that the DM can overrule any "authorship" suggests that the player authorship does not truly exist. It is an illusion. That is very different to the RPG Summerland where a success on an action taken by the character via allows the player to narrate such success for himself, the other players and the Storyteller (GM/DM). The player's narration cannot be overruled. His authorship does not require acceptance by a greater authority (i.e. the Storyteller). This is my personal definition. [B]HOWEVER[/B] I do not challenge the claim made by others if they define that D&D has player authorial control, but I do challenge such definition if it is narrowly associated it with the calling of paladin mounts, prestidigitation, action points and druid duels of AD&D and the like. It is either all encompassing of all aspects of player/character actions which drive the story or nothing at all. To suggest that there are only some elements of player authorial control and exclude all other actions which twist and change the DM's story due to player/character actions creates a farce of such definition. [/QUOTE]

Verification