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: 6201744" data-attributes="member: 42582">I said I don' want colour scenes framed as action scenes.None of these is about ultimate arbiter of events in the gameworld. And I have never denied that the GM has to make judgements  - when you imputed to me (on no evidentiary basis) the view that the GM's role is purely mechanical I vehemently denied the imputation.Being ultimate arbiter of the fictional positioning of PC; being ultimate arbiter of any credibility tests; being ultimate arbiter of whether the player has to engage the action resolution in order to impose his/her will upon the fiction; NONE OF THESE IS THE GM BEING ULTIMATE ARBITER OVER THE EVENTS OF THE GAMEWORLD.In the first case it is the player who gets to decide, given his/her PC's fictional positioning, what his/her PC does. (For instance, in the example of play that I gave it was the player of the wizard who decided to contribute to the goading of the evil advisor, and thereby successfully goad him into attacking.)In the second instance it is the player who gets to decide, within the limits of genre and mechanical paramaters, what his/her PC does, and as stated multiple times upthread the GM will have framed a scene in which those decisions can make a difference to the ouctome. And the GM exercising authority over credibility is not a general veto. Here is a simple analogy: some rides at a fair have a rule "You must be this high to ride". Enforcing such a rule is not exercising a general power of veto. Some drinking establishments have a rule "You must be 18 to enter." Enforcing such a rule is not exercising a general power of veto. Being the ultimate arbiter of mechanical and genre parameters is not exercising a general power of veto. It is not being ultimate arbiter of outcomes of events in the gameworld.In the third instance it is the player who gets to decide what his/her PC does and therefore how the fiction changes in response to that action by the PC.I do not see any interpretation of these which bring it about that it is the GM, rather than the player, who is deciding what happens in the fiction. Hence, it is not the GM who is ultimate arbiter of the outcomes of events in the gameworld.First, you don't know what would have followed from failure in the instance of play that I provided upthread, because the players succeeded.Second, for an instance of fail forward - in combat - see my example upthread of the PCs being captured by the goblins and waking in their dungeons.Third, I don't know why you think that the PCs being sent to the dungeons can't be part of "failing forward", given that it is an example given by Luke Crane, one of the pioneers of the method at least in published game texts: Crane gives the example of the PC being sent to the dungeons, and then having his/her nemesis turn up and offer freedom if only the PC will do this one little favour (in D&D, that role could be well-played by a devil).Fourth, I don't understand how the GM always framing scenes that the players can engage and push in the directions that the players want is an examle of railroading, whereas the GM framing a scene in which the players cannot make any difference to the outcome in the fiction is the GM giving the players a free hand to chart their own path.I mean, if the players are setting the goals (as you note in the passages I have just quoted) in what sense is it the GM's trail of breadcrumbs?What I see is that I am providing actual play examples in which the players set the goals for their PCs, and thereby set the direction of play; in which the players declare the actions for their PCs; in which the GM has framed scenes in which those declarations have a chance of changing the scene in unexpected ways in both fictional and mechanical terms; in which no one at the table knows what will happen until play actually takes place (I can tell you, no on at my table anticipated that the dinner party would end with the advisor being goaded into attacking the PCs).And you are trying to tell me that this is the GM exercising ultimate control over the content of the fiction in the gameworld, and over the outcome of events. That the GM "saying yes" and allowing a player to dictate the content of the fiction is an exercise of GM force.So yes, I definitely think we have differing conceptions of GM force. I use it to mean the GM imposing his/her will on the fiction, regardless of the action resolution mechanics. Whereas you seem to use it to mean the playes imposing their will on the fiction, either via the action resolution mechanics or as a result of the GM saying yes.</blockquote>

Verification