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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9631848" data-attributes="member: 6785785">But that's what's happening. Why not call it what it is? Why this fear of using certain words? The players ask about the cameras, which the GM hadn't previously detailed or prepared. This prompts him to come up with something. The whole game is a series of prompts. It's a conversation, with the GM prompting the players ("What do you do?") and then the players declaring actions that prompt a response. So the GM decides:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If there is a camera</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">If it captured anything</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">How useful that information may be</li> </ul>And what guides him is:- what has been preparedOne GM might say there was no camera. Another might say the killer is revealed. Other GMs may offer anything in between those two extremes. This part of the conversation came about when [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] described the players as having the ability to add new clues in play. I asked how, and he came up with the example of the cameras.My point is that the players don't have the ability to add a new clue. They can ask about something (i.e. the cameras) and that will then prompt the GM to consider this possibility. But as you say, the GM can decide there was no camera, or that nothing was caught on it, or any other outcome that doesn't result in a clue. My point being... everything is up to the GM. Sure, that's an idea, and may be perfectly fine! I think the idea of involving players is likely a good one. Give them some amount of input. In the example of the cameras, a principle that was something like "Reward good ideas" would probably help... it would guide the GM not to shut down the camera idea. I think it is very helpful. As I've said a couple of times now, and connecting this in a way back to the original point in the OP... there is so much GM authorship going on in this scenario that it can be easy to overlook it. This is why I think [USER=23751]@Maxperson[/USER] made the mistake of saying that the players can add new clues to the scenario. He's forgetting that the GM can simply deny that if it seems to make sense to do so. Breaking it down and looking at the parts makes it easy to see how much the GM is deciding about what is happening in play, and that can be easy to miss when looking at the entirety of play.</blockquote>

Verification