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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 9623881" data-attributes="member: 85870">So going back to the Monte Cook separation of "player agency" vs. "narrative control".I think there is a missing component that lives between the two, which is "player intent".I think this is the primary locus where GM fiat lives. It's entirely possible to have near-limitless player agency (choices of actions to declare) yet none of those choices directly address player intent.Action declaration >> player intent is to achieve x narrative result >> action resolution through rules interface >> control of narrative / modification of narrative positioning allowed or disallowed by rule, collective assent, or GM assent.In a 14-month Savage Worlds campaign as a player, there came a point in time where I no longer felt that my character's main motivations had the ability to be realized within the "trad" framework that the GM was following.This particular character was an escaped slave, and had a deep motivation to address and eliminate the in-fiction slaving culture at its source. Yet no part of the game as it was being run had the  ability to address that in-fiction character concern. It would have required preparation, intentionality, and developing a potential narrative framing to address this character intent.Now the obvious retort is, "Why would you expect the GM to place any credence/importance on your character's inner dialogue? That's not what D&D / Savage Worlds / GURPS / Mythras / insert system of your choice is about."But for me this is the missing link between player agency and narrative control. Trad GM-ing is by principle and practice hostile to the allowance of player intent to be a factor in narrative control / narrative framing.</blockquote>

Verification