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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Matt Snyder" data-source="post: 3137931" data-attributes="member: 11840">Burning Wheel is an awesome game. It has a robust set of rules that do indeed have direct bearing on the game narrative. It specifically includes rules that indicate how effects and conflicts must be "enforced" (as opposed to allowing the GM to decide otherwise, i.e. GM fiat). Burning Wheel does not distribute narrative authority formally as do other indie RPGs. It's mostly silent on this particular issue; there are no specific rules for "who narrates what" after events are decided by dice, for example. Other games do indeed do this specifically. That said, there are parts of the game system that allow players to announce their actions and then the GM incorporates that. For example, in the Duel of Wits -- a system to resolve all kinds of social interaction -- players must narrate what their character does for each of his "manuevers" for the exchange (sorta like a set of combat rounds). So, overall, the game is a bit more, um, loose on narration; there's a bit more give-and-take between GM and players. But, fundamentally, the game maintains a pretty traditional distribution of narration authority in the hands of the GM.No, actually it doesn't make sense to me. I mean this respectfully! Not tring to be snide. Here's what I'm getting at. One thing you wrote is: I read this as incompatible with GM Fiat. Here's why: You said you want your outcomes to be determined by your character's actions. GM Fiat -- as I've represented it in my previous posts -- doesnt' care one whit what your character's actions actually are. Certainly, it might appear to care, or somehow seem compatible. But, fundamentally, the decision on outcomes is that of the GM, not you, not your character, not the dice you roll, none of that. In GM fiat, either the GM decides the outcome will be this or it will be that. That's it. Your characters actions don't really matter if the GM just decides otherwise, do they? If you reply by saying "Well, the GM should take my character's actions into account." Ok, fine. That's cool. But, then it's not GM Fiat anymore, is it? Now, it's you and the GM agreeing that the outcome will be defined by THIS ROLL (or THIS CHOICE or THIS ACTION whatever). It's not the GM just making the decision anymore. It's something else; it's not GM fiat.You also wrote: This also does not make sense to me. I have played in games where both things are happening during play. I'm not saying you WANT to do that, but I am saying it's possible. I'm trying to argue that this is your personal preferencee, but NOT a paradoxical impossibility. Your preference is cool, but it's not representative of "role-playing" for example.And, I'm not seeing how this particular issue relates to GM fiat (again, in the terms I'm talking about -- we're probably just seeing two different things when we each read "GM Fiat"). This is more about exploration of, say, a setting in which you discover mysteries and similar fun, surprising things during play. I'm just not seein how this has anything to do with GM Fiat directly. This issue isn't necessarily about GMs making arbitrary decisions so much as it is about GMs having extraordinary creative authority alone over a setting.</blockquote>

Verification