Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8606992" data-attributes="member: 16814">More like there are places where the player gets a say and places where the GM gets a say.&nbsp; And by say, I mean they get what they want out of the fiction.Here's usually how this goes -- the players tell the GM what they want the game to be about.&nbsp; They establish some themes and important conflicts they want to see in&nbsp; play.&nbsp; The GM then HAS to provide this, because that was the players' say.&nbsp; But, the GM gets the how and what of the say, so they frame a situation that speaks to what the players said and puts that into danger and play.&nbsp; The players then get to say what it is that they do, and have some pretty wide latitude to bring in elements that don't contradict established play (note, not the GM's notes, but what's been established in play at the table).&nbsp; The GM either goes with that say, or challenges it.&nbsp; If the GM challenges (and they probably should since it's an important bit of play the players wanted) then it goes to mechanics, and we get to see that way who ends up with the say -- does the player end up with the say or is the GM now required to put out a say that goes against what the PC wanted?In the case of the tablets, I don't really see a moment of play turning on this.&nbsp; Rather this seems like a version of &quot;ask the player questions, then use the answers.&quot;&nbsp; This is a bit of PbtA and FitD principle that say if you ask the question, you're bound to use the answer, and that you should ask the questions!&nbsp; Of course, there's little in these games that can give quite the mechanical &quot;I Win&quot; that items and spells and whatnot do in D&amp;D.&nbsp; I'm of the strong opinion that using these kinds of techniques in D&amp;D causes problems due to how the system is structured -- you cannot escape GM says and still be playing D&amp;D.&nbsp; Well, 4e being a notable exception in many ways.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8606992, member: 16814"] More like there are places where the player gets a say and places where the GM gets a say. And by say, I mean they get what they want out of the fiction. Here's usually how this goes -- the players tell the GM what they want the game to be about. They establish some themes and important conflicts they want to see in play. The GM then HAS to provide this, because that was the players' say. But, the GM gets the how and what of the say, so they frame a situation that speaks to what the players said and puts that into danger and play. The players then get to say what it is that they do, and have some pretty wide latitude to bring in elements that don't contradict established play (note, not the GM's notes, but what's been established in play at the table). The GM either goes with that say, or challenges it. If the GM challenges (and they probably should since it's an important bit of play the players wanted) then it goes to mechanics, and we get to see that way who ends up with the say -- does the player end up with the say or is the GM now required to put out a say that goes against what the PC wanted? In the case of the tablets, I don't really see a moment of play turning on this. Rather this seems like a version of "ask the player questions, then use the answers." This is a bit of PbtA and FitD principle that say if you ask the question, you're bound to use the answer, and that you should ask the questions! Of course, there's little in these games that can give quite the mechanical "I Win" that items and spells and whatnot do in D&D. I'm of the strong opinion that using these kinds of techniques in D&D causes problems due to how the system is structured -- you cannot escape GM says and still be playing D&D. Well, 4e being a notable exception in many ways. [/QUOTE]

Verification