Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6452338" data-attributes="member: 42582">A paladin player can make it true, in the setting, that a warhorse is waiting for his/her PC to come and claim it. That is changing the setting other than through the character's actions and abilities (the character has no ability to spontaneously create warhorses, nor their guardians and homes). A fighter player can make it true, in the setting, that there are 100 mercenaries led by a 5th level fighter carrying a +2 battle axe looking to take service under that fighter (the character has no ability to spontaneously create armies, lieutenants or magical battle axes).The example of the boxes - which I introduced into the discussion - is of a GM responding to a player query as to whether or not there are boxes in the alley. So I don't know why you are talking about "the player simpy stating that his/her PC is climbing the boxes." Even in a game with OGL Conan-style fate points, the player first has to spend the point to create the boxes, which is subject to GM veto.The only bit of text in Gygax's DMG that I recall that discusses this sort of example is on p 93, under the heading "Territory Development by Player Characters":Assume that the player in question decides that he will set up a stronghold about 100 miles from a border town, choosing an area of wooded hills as the general site. He then asks you if there is a place whre he can build a small concentric castle on a high bluff overlooking a rive. Unless this is totally foreign to the area, you inform him that he can do so.There are a number of possible responses to that player request. The GM might say no, suspecting the player of some sort of bad faith. [MENTION=5143]Majoru Oakheart[/MENTION] has, upthread, said that his default orientation to such requests is to say no.Another possibility is determining the terrain via random roll. [MENTION=386]LostSoul[/MENTION] has, upthread, said that this is his default approach, because it assures GM neutrality rather than risking GM bias.Gygax advocates saying yes "unless what is requested is totally foreign". The fact that Gygax advises this is not, in itself, a reason to do it. I'm not saying that Gygax's approach is better than anyone elses - different approaches have their different reasons and results that they fit with.My point is that the passage from Gygax is not a million miles from this (MHRP Operations Manual p 54):A lot of things in the story don’t have dice associated with them because they’re a part of the fiction that everyone at the table just agrees on. Lampposts, sidewalks, plate windows, random passersby, bouquets of flowers, newspapers, and other items that aren’t immediately important are just context and color. You can make them important by using your effect dice to make them assets, or use them as part of your description for stunts, but so long as you have the power to smash a glass window (most people) or rip a lamppost out of the street (anyone with Superhuman Strength) it shouldn’t even require dice.This is not identical to Gygax's example. For instance, it connects player narration of backstory more intimately to action resolution than in Gygax's example. But non-identity is not the same thing as radical difference.I'm not conflating anything. Upthread I've asserted that the difference between a default GM approach of saying yes to player nomination of backstory, between player authority over backstory via some rationing scheme and subject to GM veto, and player authority without GM veto, are technical differences.They are not radical cleavages that mark off classic D&D from more "modern" RPGs. Even moreso because, in a game played as a social activity (and often among friends) the reality of authority can be very fluid even if the game rules demarcate it in quite a formal fashion.</blockquote>

Verification