Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6449682" data-attributes="member: 22779">On the difference between player in game choices and player authorial control.In the example above, it's argued that the players choosing a different route is a form of player authorial control, same as the player choosing to summon his mount.&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; There are some very key differences.Say the group is traveling from A to B along a road.&nbsp; They decide to take a short cut through a forest - something the DM wasn't prepared for.&nbsp; This isn't the same thing as summoning a mount because the choice doesn't actually obligate anything from the DM.&nbsp; Nothing is being added to the setting.&nbsp; The short cut might not work, for example - there might be a big ravine in the way, or an impassible cliff, or a monster that is far too powerful to be dealt with.&nbsp; All of these things are quite possible.&nbsp; When a paladin player calls his mount, none of these things are possible - the mount quest must be nearby the paladin, it must be specifically tailored to that paladin, and the goal (gaining the horse) is dictated before you begin.&nbsp; The players simply choosing another route obligates nothing from the DM.&nbsp; Encounters along the way have no need to be tailored to the party, and, in fact, in early D&amp;D wouldn't be tailored to the party at all - that's why those wilderness random tables were so deadly.&nbsp; There doesn't actually have to be a passable route through the forest either.&nbsp; IOW, the choice of a different route in no way means that the party will achieve their goal at all.For it to be the same as a paladin summoning his mount, it would have to go like this:Player:&nbsp; We are going to cut through this forest.&nbsp; DM, you will provide a tailored scenario for our group that is very plausibly resolvable by our group, and, after we finish that scenario, we will arrive at B.&nbsp; To me, that's player authorial control.Simply choosing another option presented in the game world adds nothing to the game world.&nbsp; The players aren't authoring anything.&nbsp; It's no different than a Choose Your Own Adventure story where you are presented with different options.&nbsp; You can choose A or B (or C or D) but, you can't choose to add something to the story that wasn't there before.But, that being said, [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], I do fully agree that there are many other forms of proto-player authorial control in early D&amp;D.&nbsp; Totally agree with you on that.&nbsp; I'm just harping on this one, because, for some reason, it keeps being rejected as an example and further, all other examples have been rejected by [MENTION=5]Mark[/MENTION]CMG.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6449682, member: 22779"] On the difference between player in game choices and player authorial control. In the example above, it's argued that the players choosing a different route is a form of player authorial control, same as the player choosing to summon his mount. I disagree. There are some very key differences. Say the group is traveling from A to B along a road. They decide to take a short cut through a forest - something the DM wasn't prepared for. This isn't the same thing as summoning a mount because the choice doesn't actually obligate anything from the DM. Nothing is being added to the setting. The short cut might not work, for example - there might be a big ravine in the way, or an impassible cliff, or a monster that is far too powerful to be dealt with. All of these things are quite possible. When a paladin player calls his mount, none of these things are possible - the mount quest must be nearby the paladin, it must be specifically tailored to that paladin, and the goal (gaining the horse) is dictated before you begin. The players simply choosing another route obligates nothing from the DM. Encounters along the way have no need to be tailored to the party, and, in fact, in early D&D wouldn't be tailored to the party at all - that's why those wilderness random tables were so deadly. There doesn't actually have to be a passable route through the forest either. IOW, the choice of a different route in no way means that the party will achieve their goal at all. For it to be the same as a paladin summoning his mount, it would have to go like this: Player: We are going to cut through this forest. DM, you will provide a tailored scenario for our group that is very plausibly resolvable by our group, and, after we finish that scenario, we will arrive at B. To me, that's player authorial control. Simply choosing another option presented in the game world adds nothing to the game world. The players aren't authoring anything. It's no different than a Choose Your Own Adventure story where you are presented with different options. You can choose A or B (or C or D) but, you can't choose to add something to the story that wasn't there before. But, that being said, [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION], I do fully agree that there are many other forms of proto-player authorial control in early D&D. Totally agree with you on that. I'm just harping on this one, because, for some reason, it keeps being rejected as an example and further, all other examples have been rejected by [MENTION=5]Mark[/MENTION]CMG. [/QUOTE]

Verification