Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon 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 Next
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
*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!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
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
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
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: 7629760" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] - there's more than one thing going on in your post but I thought I'd start with this one, as it speaks directly to the OP:</p><p></p><p>The OP, following in the lead of Donald Davidson, is really asserting that "do" and "accomplish" are synonyms.</p><p></p><p>So <em>opening the safe</em> is something that the PC does. And <em>finding X in the safe</em> (or not, as the case may be) is also something that the PC does. And <em>nimbly moving his/her fingers while listening to the fall of the tumblers</em> is also something that the PC does. And these are all <em>the same thing</em>, although under different descriptions - just as <em>moving my finger</em>, <em>flicking on the light switch</em>, <em>illuminating the room<em> and <em>alerting the prowler that I've come home</em> are all descriptions - different descriptions - of the one action.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>Building on this point, the OP is asking about <em>who, at the table, gets to decide what descriptions are true</em> and is pushing for answers to this - which of course might be different for different systems, different contexts of play, different preferences, etc - which go beyond <em>the player decides what the PC does</em>. Because once we recognise that <em>what the PC does</em> is something amenable to multiple descriptions, at varying levels of "thinness"/"thickness", some of which are intended and some of which - like the alerting of the prowler - might be inadvertent - then we can see that it doesn't take us very far to say that someone gets to decide what the PC does. Because we need to know <em>what sorts of descriptions is that person entitled to make true</em>.</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>One issue this raises is - what is the connection between <em>player desire</em> about the outcome of an action, <em>PC hope/intention</em> in performing an action (which may be the same as what the player desires, but perhaps not always), and <em>true descriptions</em> of the action?</em></em></p><p><em><em></em></em></p><p><em><em>In fairly traditional D&D action declarations which have no very rich intention behind them - say, <em>I open the safe to see what's inside it</em> - are fairly common. And the GM has a correspondingly very extensive licence to settle true descriptions of those actions- <em>You open the safe and see nothing</em>, or maybe <em>You open the safe only to realise it's a gateway - your mind is blasted as you look on the face of Demogorgon at the other end of the interplaner portal!" Of course there are various principles that are expected to govern the formulation of those descriptions - including (say) fidelity to pre-written notes; cognisance of both PC level and dungeon level; not adopting such a "gotcha" appoach that skilled play becomes impossible, etc. But player desire and PC intention don't play a huge role.</em></em></em></p><p><em><em><em></em></em></em></p><p><em><em><em>Conversely, in BW an action declaration without some fairly rich specification of an intention or a hope isn't really well-formed. Which then has a big effect on how true descriptions are established: if the check succeeds, then we know that, in the fiction, there is a true description of the action which is the PC getting what s/he wanted. The rule book even describes this as "sacrosanct".</em></em></em></p><p><em><em><em></em></em></em></p><p><em><em><em>Does the above help make clearer what I'm trying to get at and ask about in the OP?</em></em></em></p><p><em><em><em></em></em></em></p><p><em><em><em>Hopefully the earlier parts of this post help with this. When I turn on a light switch with the result that I illuminate a room and alert a prowler - with the motion of the switch itself being a result of moving my finger - these are all <em>the same thing that I do]</em>, albeit described differently.</em></em></em></p><p><em><em><em></em></em></em></p><p><em><em><em>Of course in a RPG system you might impose a rule that (say) the players can make true such-and-such sorts of descriptions (eg descriptions about PC bodily movements) and the GM can make true such-and-such other descriptions (eg of what they see when the look somewhere) and maybe use random tables for something else, and make some authority subject to some mechanical checks, etc - but that is a decision about who gets to establish what descriptions as true. The point of the OP is that you can't get to it just by contrasting (so-called) actions with (so-called) results. That contrast is <em>downstream</em> of, not <em>upstream</em> of, a decision about who gets to establish what descriptions as true.</em></em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7629760, member: 42582"] [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] - there's more than one thing going on in your post but I thought I'd start with this one, as it speaks directly to the OP: The OP, following in the lead of Donald Davidson, is really asserting that "do" and "accomplish" are synonyms. So [i]opening the safe[/i] is something that the PC does. And [i]finding X in the safe[/i] (or not, as the case may be) is also something that the PC does. And [i]nimbly moving his/her fingers while listening to the fall of the tumblers[/i] is also something that the PC does. And these are all [i]the same thing[/i], although under different descriptions - just as [i]moving my finger[/i], [i]flicking on the light switch[/i], [i]illuminating the room[i] and [i]alerting the prowler that I've come home[/i] are all descriptions - different descriptions - of the one action. Building on this point, the OP is asking about [i]who, at the table, gets to decide what descriptions are true[/i] and is pushing for answers to this - which of course might be different for different systems, different contexts of play, different preferences, etc - which go beyond [i]the player decides what the PC does[/i]. Because once we recognise that [i]what the PC does[/i] is something amenable to multiple descriptions, at varying levels of "thinness"/"thickness", some of which are intended and some of which - like the alerting of the prowler - might be inadvertent - then we can see that it doesn't take us very far to say that someone gets to decide what the PC does. Because we need to know [i]what sorts of descriptions is that person entitled to make true[/i]. One issue this raises is - what is the connection between [i]player desire[/i] about the outcome of an action, [i]PC hope/intention[/i] in performing an action (which may be the same as what the player desires, but perhaps not always), and [i]true descriptions[/i] of the action? In fairly traditional D&D action declarations which have no very rich intention behind them - say, [i]I open the safe to see what's inside it[/i] - are fairly common. And the GM has a correspondingly very extensive licence to settle true descriptions of those actions- [i]You open the safe and see nothing[/i], or maybe [i]You open the safe only to realise it's a gateway - your mind is blasted as you look on the face of Demogorgon at the other end of the interplaner portal!" Of course there are various principles that are expected to govern the formulation of those descriptions - including (say) fidelity to pre-written notes; cognisance of both PC level and dungeon level; not adopting such a "gotcha" appoach that skilled play becomes impossible, etc. But player desire and PC intention don't play a huge role. Conversely, in BW an action declaration without some fairly rich specification of an intention or a hope isn't really well-formed. Which then has a big effect on how true descriptions are established: if the check succeeds, then we know that, in the fiction, there is a true description of the action which is the PC getting what s/he wanted. The rule book even describes this as "sacrosanct". Does the above help make clearer what I'm trying to get at and ask about in the OP? Hopefully the earlier parts of this post help with this. When I turn on a light switch with the result that I illuminate a room and alert a prowler - with the motion of the switch itself being a result of moving my finger - these are all [i]the same thing that I do][/i], albeit described differently. Of course in a RPG system you might impose a rule that (say) the players can make true such-and-such sorts of descriptions (eg descriptions about PC bodily movements) and the GM can make true such-and-such other descriptions (eg of what they see when the look somewhere) and maybe use random tables for something else, and make some authority subject to some mechanical checks, etc - but that is a decision about who gets to establish what descriptions as true. The point of the OP is that you can't get to it just by contrasting (so-called) actions with (so-called) results. That contrast is [i]downstream[/i] of, not [i]upstream[/i] of, a decision about who gets to establish what descriptions as true.[/i][/i][/i] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top