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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Lanefan" data-source="post: 7635321" data-attributes="member: 29398">This to me is a false premise, in that not all (or even all that many) challenges need only have two clear mutually-exclusive outcomes to still be defined as challenges.  Outcomes often run on a scale, with highly-desireable at one end and highly-undesireable at the other and a whole lot of other options in between.Which is fine provided it's done within the framework of the game mechanics.  An NPC charms or dominates my character?  Cool - I can run with that.But if the GM declares my PC's actions or thoughts by fiat then at that point I think (at least 98% of the time) I've probably got a bad GM.As long as you-the-player retain control over declaring the attempted action, this doesn't conflict with what I said...though again it probably points to a bad GM unless there is in the fiction some difficulty in walking e.g. on an icy slope.And the player can decide what and how the character thinks, and what its emotions are, unless that control has been removed as above.To me the latter two of those three are concatenated: the GM gains control only when the mechanics allow her to.The exception, of course, arises if a player is absent but that player's PC is still being played (e.g. it just doesn't make in-fiction sense to have that PC disappear for a while).  Some GMs take over the PC as an NPC in those cases, others (like us) give the missing player's PC to another player - or a committee of the whole table - to look after.Not quite, in fact.If someone's baseline familiarity is cooking with an oven, when talking about microwaving you're going to want to frequently reference the oven as a point of comparison in order to give what you're saying a context that makes sense to the listener.</blockquote>

Verification