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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7084183" data-attributes="member: 16814">The problem here is one of communication.  Because it's obvious to you how your mechanic works, you haven't explained it well, and, even when you note that Max may not be familiar with the mechanic you used you just insist he can't understand instead of explaining it.Here's how I understand it.   The players announced an intention to get the advisor to out himself.  The intention was that this be complete and irrevocable -- that, if successful, the advisor would be placed into a position where there was no mitigation of his failure.  You framed the challenge necessary to accomplish this intent, and play commenced.  The players were successful which means you have to honor their intent going forward -- the advisor cannot mitigate the result because that would be against the intent of the challenge.  In this framework, the NPCs involved have no ability to force an agenda outside of the challenge.  In other words, the advisor cannot concoct a new plan that would thwart the player's intent because the advisor, as an NPC, is entirely reactionary outside of framing -- the NPC cannot force a new challenge on the players, he's only a piece to be used as part of a challenge the players set for themselves.  NPCs are framing devices only.Max, on the other hand, sees that the initial intent of 'get the advisor to out himself' was accomplished, but he sees the advisor has having an agenda that can be pushed against the players via narration -- to Max, the advisor isn't held to outcome as immutable, but can now enact a new agenda to limit the damage.  He's still outed himself, but he is still free to act against the PCs.  In this sense, the NPCs have and act upon their own agendas even outside of the challenge framing -- ie, the NPC can force a new challenge on the players.  NPCs have individual agency against the PCs.This is part and parcel of the meta discussion going on here, between DM-centric and Player-centric playstyles and resolution mechanics.  In a player centric game, the world and it's NPCs are framing devices only -- they exist only to provide the challenges against player stated intents.  In a DM-centric game, the world and NPCs have their own agendas that they persue, and can force those agendas against players.  This is really the critical divide I discern between the concepts -- in one, the world exists only as antagonist to the player desires, in the other, the world exists for players to pit themselves against it.  The difference coming from the source of struggle, from the PCs or from the world.  Of course, these can be blended to a lesser or greater degree with a lesser or greater degree of success.</blockquote>

Verification