Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6071032" data-attributes="member: 6696971">No worries.&nbsp; I wasn't offended.&nbsp; I thought you might have been and was trying to figure out where I might have triggered that and how to avoid it in the future.I know analogies are horrible and wretched things and I'm reluctant to use them because of it.&nbsp; I was just trying to relate my sense that there is virtually always an authority figure (or someone with means to remove/circumvent fiat) over any individual with fiat power (from heads of the home; parents - to the heads of state; kings and queens).&nbsp; Does that then mean that fiat is an inherently incoherent concept, and thus useless?&nbsp; That is not my sense of things.&nbsp; I hold the same to be true in this case.&nbsp; The player has as much fiat as is possible in a system with a GM and an mechanical interface to resolve improvised attacks.&nbsp; All in all, we're pinning down new RPG jargon that has never seen the light of day.&nbsp; Obryn put out the term on how to encapsulate it.&nbsp; Player agency is another term we use that has longer standing; perhaps the less constrained term.If folks decide that there is no spectrum for fiat and its a binary, all or nothing, term, then so be it.&nbsp; I can accept a different term for what I'm outlining.&nbsp; If its player agency, then fair enough.&nbsp; Language is created and leveraged to convey commonly understood concepts, ideas, rationale.&nbsp; If my thought on the term during its genesis is &quot;off the reservation&quot;, then I get voted off the island <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; I can handle that and use whatever terms are dictated by the collective.&nbsp; Me saying NU-UH all day long doesn't mean much when everyone else can put a term to good use with a shared, common understanding.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 6071032, member: 6696971"] No worries. I wasn't offended. I thought you might have been and was trying to figure out where I might have triggered that and how to avoid it in the future. I know analogies are horrible and wretched things and I'm reluctant to use them because of it. I was just trying to relate my sense that there is virtually always an authority figure (or someone with means to remove/circumvent fiat) over any individual with fiat power (from heads of the home; parents - to the heads of state; kings and queens). Does that then mean that fiat is an inherently incoherent concept, and thus useless? That is not my sense of things. I hold the same to be true in this case. The player has as much fiat as is possible in a system with a GM and an mechanical interface to resolve improvised attacks. All in all, we're pinning down new RPG jargon that has never seen the light of day. Obryn put out the term on how to encapsulate it. Player agency is another term we use that has longer standing; perhaps the less constrained term. If folks decide that there is no spectrum for fiat and its a binary, all or nothing, term, then so be it. I can accept a different term for what I'm outlining. If its player agency, then fair enough. Language is created and leveraged to convey commonly understood concepts, ideas, rationale. If my thought on the term during its genesis is "off the reservation", then I get voted off the island ;) I can handle that and use whatever terms are dictated by the collective. Me saying NU-UH all day long doesn't mean much when everyone else can put a term to good use with a shared, common understanding. [/QUOTE]

Verification