Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7628194" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The function of players in RPGing is often described as <em>deciding what their PCs do</em>. But this can be quite ambiguous.</p><p></p><p>A classic article on the analysis of actions (Donald Davidson, "Actions, Reasons, and Causes" (1963)) gives the following example:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">I flip the switch, turn on the light, and illuminate the room. Unbeknownst to me I also alert a prowler to the fact that I am home. Here I need not have done four things, but only one, of which four descriptions have been given.</p><p></p><p>In RPGing, I think it's a big deal who gets to decide what descriptions of the PCs' actions are true, and how.</p><p></p><p>For instance, suppose that my ability to decide what descriptions are true of my PC's actions is confined to very "thin" descriptions focused on the character's bodily movements, like <em>I attack the orc with my sword</em> or <em>I wink at the maiden</em>. Playing that game will produce a very different experience from one in which I can decide that the following description is true of my PC's actions: <em>I kill the orc with my sword</em> or <em>I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink</em>.</p><p></p><p>The same point can be made in relation to success on checks: if succeeding at a check makes a description such as <em>I find what I was looking for in the safe</em> true, that game will produce a different experience from one in which it makes true only a description such as <em>I open the safe</em>, with the description of my action in terms of <em>I find X in the safe</em> remaining something for someone else - eg the GM - to decide.</p><p></p><p>This example shows how it is possible (i) for it to be true that <em>the players choose what their PCs do</em> - under a certain, fairly thin or confined sort of description - and (ii) for there to be fudge-free checks and yet (iii) for it also to be the case that <em>the GM decides everything significant that happens</em> - ie it is the GM who gets to establish the richer, wider, consequence-laden descriptions of what the PCs do.</p><p></p><p>I think that a failure to recognise this point makes a lot of discussions of railroading, "player agency" less productive or insightful than they might be.</p><p></p><p>What do others think about who does, or should, get to establish the truth of descriptions of PC actions, and how?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7628194, member: 42582"] The function of players in RPGing is often described as [I]deciding what their PCs do[/I]. But this can be quite ambiguous. A classic article on the analysis of actions (Donald Davidson, "Actions, Reasons, and Causes" (1963)) gives the following example: [indent]I flip the switch, turn on the light, and illuminate the room. Unbeknownst to me I also alert a prowler to the fact that I am home. Here I need not have done four things, but only one, of which four descriptions have been given.[/indent] In RPGing, I think it's a big deal who gets to decide what descriptions of the PCs' actions are true, and how. For instance, suppose that my ability to decide what descriptions are true of my PC's actions is confined to very "thin" descriptions focused on the character's bodily movements, like [I]I attack the orc with my sword[/I] or [I]I wink at the maiden[/I]. Playing that game will produce a very different experience from one in which I can decide that the following description is true of my PC's actions: [I]I kill the orc with my sword[/I] or [I]I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink[/I]. The same point can be made in relation to success on checks: if succeeding at a check makes a description such as [I]I find what I was looking for in the safe[/I] true, that game will produce a different experience from one in which it makes true only a description such as [I]I open the safe[/I], with the description of my action in terms of [I]I find X in the safe[/I] remaining something for someone else - eg the GM - to decide. This example shows how it is possible (i) for it to be true that [I]the players choose what their PCs do[/I] - under a certain, fairly thin or confined sort of description - and (ii) for there to be fudge-free checks and yet (iii) for it also to be the case that [I]the GM decides everything significant that happens[/I] - ie it is the GM who gets to establish the richer, wider, consequence-laden descriptions of what the PCs do. I think that a failure to recognise this point makes a lot of discussions of railroading, "player agency" less productive or insightful than they might be. What do others think about who does, or should, get to establish the truth of descriptions of PC actions, and how? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top