Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6153269" data-attributes="member: 6681948">That question's not directed at me, but if I might weigh in...To me, the &quot;there is a flowerpot on the windowsill&quot; example can fit four categories:(a)&nbsp;&nbsp; The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it is plausible for a flowerpot to be there and the GM's backstory is&nbsp; not contradicted&nbsp; by there being a flowerpot.&nbsp; While it was not planned to be there, it was also not planned not to be there.&nbsp; Thus, no contradiction.&nbsp; This might come up in play without mechanics as &quot;is there something on the sill, maybe a flowerpot or something, that I could toss down at the guy climbing up?&quot;, and the GM says &quot;no&quot; or &quot;sure, why&nbsp; not?&quot;(b)&nbsp; The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it seems plausible for a flowerpot to be there but the GM's backstory is&nbsp; contradicted&nbsp; by there being a flowerpot. Maybe, unknown to the players, the apartment's occupant is very allergic to most plants, which is an important investigative clue or plot point later.&nbsp; So we now have the question of &quot;GM Veto&quot; based on his knowledge of the bbackstory, or whether his backstory can be overruled by this player ability.&nbsp; This might come up in play without mechanics as &quot;is there something on the sill, maybe a flowerpot or something, that I could toss down at the guy climbing up?&quot;, and the GM says &quot;no&quot; or, perhaps, &quot;no flowerpot, but there is a knick-knack which looks fairly heavy and solid&quot;.&nbsp; (c)&nbsp;&nbsp; The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it seems plausible for a flowerpot to be there but the GM's backstory is&nbsp; contradicted&nbsp; by there being a flowerpot or anything similar.&nbsp; If the background says the furnishings are spartan, no decorations, etc., as that's related to the occupant, then the answer would be &quot;no&quot; absent a narrative control ability that can alter the GM's backstory unilaterally.&nbsp; In that case, the GM has to revise anything that was impacted by that spartan outlook, or come up on the spot with something that could be there without contradicting the background.(d)&nbsp;&nbsp; The contents of the room have been described in enough detail to establish there is no flowerpot on the windowsill.&nbsp; The only way the player can &quot;find&quot; that desired object is to revise the previously established facts.&nbsp; Now we are revising an already known fact.&nbsp; I think that is where pemerton would clearly draw the line - it has already been established in the game that there is no flowerpot, and that can't be revised.&nbsp; Another example:&nbsp; If it has already been established that my character was home-schooled, no one can later introduce the backstory that I met some character in a boarding school we both attended, but if his schooling has not been established in play, then either home schooling or boarding school are open to be established in play.The question this leaves, for me, is what level of establishe backstory is needed.&nbsp; If it has not been established in play (only in the GM's notes) that the orcs are really automatons, can the player &quot;force&quot; them not to be automatons, requiring the GM to modify the rest of the scenario, or even game world, to accomodate this, or can his greater knowledge of backstory trump the player's narrative control?&nbsp; That gets to the &quot;vetoable&quot; aspect.I can only say &quot;not in my games&quot;.&nbsp; I often have notes on the point at which the Bad Guys will flee, surrender, etc.&nbsp; That can, however, be influenced by in-game events.&nbsp; If the cowardly Orcs would surrender if, say, a quarter of their number were casualties (or, perhaps, they do not outnumber the PC's at least 3 to 1), but the PC's charge in yelling &quot;No prisoners - slay them all!&quot; that will change &quot;surrender&quot; to &quot;flight if possible; desparate fighting otherwise&quot;.&nbsp; Similarly, the PC's might have a reputation for killing the wounded (deserved or not, but derived from campaign events) which would change the Orcs' approach if they are aware of that reputation.Funny how so many GM's who complain their PC's never consider flight or surrender play every enemy as a frothing fanatic who will try to beat the PC's with the bloody stumps where his arms once were, never considering any tactic other than fighting to his last breath.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="N'raac, post: 6153269, member: 6681948"] That question's not directed at me, but if I might weigh in... To me, the "there is a flowerpot on the windowsill" example can fit four categories: (a) The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it is plausible for a flowerpot to be there and the GM's backstory is not contradicted by there being a flowerpot. While it was not planned to be there, it was also not planned [B]not[/B] to be there. Thus, no contradiction. This might come up in play without mechanics as "is there something on the sill, maybe a flowerpot or something, that I could toss down at the guy climbing up?", and the GM says "no" or "sure, why not?" (b) The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it seems plausible for a flowerpot to be there but the GM's backstory is contradicted by there being a flowerpot. Maybe, unknown to the players, the apartment's occupant is very allergic to most plants, which is an important investigative clue or plot point later. So we now have the question of "GM Veto" based on his knowledge of the bbackstory, or whether his backstory can be overruled by this player ability. This might come up in play without mechanics as "is there something on the sill, maybe a flowerpot or something, that I could toss down at the guy climbing up?", and the GM says "no" or, perhaps, "no flowerpot, but there is a knick-knack which looks fairly heavy and solid". (c) The contents of the room have not been described in that level of detail, it seems plausible for a flowerpot to be there but the GM's backstory is contradicted by there being a flowerpot or anything similar. If the background says the furnishings are spartan, no decorations, etc., as that's related to the occupant, then the answer would be "no" absent a narrative control ability that can alter the GM's backstory unilaterally. In that case, the GM has to revise anything that was impacted by that spartan outlook, or come up on the spot with something that could be there without contradicting the background. (d) The contents of the room have been described in enough detail to establish there is no flowerpot on the windowsill. The only way the player can "find" that desired object is to revise the previously established facts. Now we are revising an already known fact. I think that is where pemerton would clearly draw the line - it has already been established in the game that there is no flowerpot, and that can't be revised. Another example: If it has already been established that my character was home-schooled, no one can later introduce the backstory that I met some character in a boarding school we both attended, but if his schooling has not been established in play, then either home schooling or boarding school are open to be established in play. The question this leaves, for me, is what level of establishe backstory is needed. If it has not been established in play (only in the GM's notes) that the orcs are really automatons, can the player "force" them not to be automatons, requiring the GM to modify the rest of the scenario, or even game world, to accomodate this, or can his greater knowledge of backstory trump the player's narrative control? That gets to the "vetoable" aspect. I can only say "not in my games". I often have notes on the point at which the Bad Guys will flee, surrender, etc. That can, however, be influenced by in-game events. If the cowardly Orcs would surrender if, say, a quarter of their number were casualties (or, perhaps, they do not outnumber the PC's at least 3 to 1), but the PC's charge in yelling "No prisoners - slay them all!" that will change "surrender" to "flight if possible; desparate fighting otherwise". Similarly, the PC's might have a reputation for killing the wounded (deserved or not, but derived from campaign events) which would change the Orcs' approach if they are aware of that reputation. Funny how so many GM's who complain their PC's never consider flight or surrender play every enemy as a frothing fanatic who will try to beat the PC's with the bloody stumps where his arms once were, never considering any tactic other than fighting to his last breath. [/QUOTE]

Verification