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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 7084313" data-attributes="member: 48965">Okay not sure I agree with this.  What "real-world events" are you speaking too?  My understanding of the area of contention seems to be around in-game events where the NPC can exercise causal power over said events.  You may exercise a playstyle where that isn't a desired aspect of play but that doesn't make it impossible.No... I think you have it wrong... mainly because I see the advisor as being capable of having an agenda that can be pushed via narration (by the DM/GM of course just as the players narrate the agendas for their PC's).  you say this isn't possible but unless we're getting caught up around the pedantic point of the fictional advisor not being able to narrate (which I think is minor in the realm of the bigger picture)... I've yet to see you posit why the advisor having an agenda (and it being narrated by whoever is playing the advisor) isn't possible as opposed to not preferable to you. But even with your example of a geas spell... it isn't a permanent settling of said relationship.  It has a duration, means of dispelling it, etc.  I don't think the confusion was around finality in resolution but around, as @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=16814" target="_blank">Ovinomancer</a> cited, a difference of playstyle in how NPC's are run and what purpose they serve. Can I ask two questions...1.) Who initiated a mechanical resolution of this?2.) How was that mechanical resolution implemented?But the PC's implemented their agenda and it succeeded... what I (and others I believe) don't understand is why the advisor can not then pursue a different agenda of mitigating the fall out in the eyes of the Baron (I mean this stuff happens in fiction all the time).  IMO your analogies all seem off... I feel like this is akin to your PC loosing a battle... then going up a level, finding a magic sword and going back to ambush the same guy who beat you... and you as DM claiming the battle between you two was already decided you can never fight him in any way again.  IMO... it's not the same challenge it is a different challenge with a (slightly) different agenda. Yeah I think you're missing the point.  GM Driven games don't by necessity mean players can't resolve the conflicts through action resolution procedures.  It seems the difference is that in GM driven games... well the GM has just as much right to use said resolution procedures for NPC's as well... this leads to the bigger difference I feel [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] seems to be driving at... those of agency and who is the protagonist.  In a player driven game, as far as I have been able to tell only the players through their characters ever act as protagonists and the NPC's, setting, color, history, etc. only exist and are only necessary when facilitating the goal of allowing that protagonism to be expressed, they are only ever reactive (whether as a success or consequence) to the players actions.  In a GM driven game both players and GM are able to express agency and protagonism through their characters. The GM can drive action just as readily as the players through having agendas and goals for NPC's that are mutable and independent of the PC's actions, having them take proactive actions to realize those agendas in the game (whether that is through means known by the PC's or as you call it secret backstory the players may not be aware of), and leveraging the same mechanics the players can, and perhaps even some they can't, for resolution of actions.  Granted I could be off base with this but this, IMO is the high level difference I've been able to suss out between the two styles.</blockquote>

Verification