Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7636356" data-attributes="member: 42582">In one of my recent posts I referred to violations of genre, fictional positioning and system logic. In the Burning Wheel rulebooks Luke Crane makes the point by saying (something like) "no roll for beam weaponry in the duke's toilet".But that is all about vetoing or refusing to entertain certain action declarations. [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] was positing a successful outcome.As [MENTION=16814]Ovinomancer[/MENTION] has posted, this seems to assume that the fiction has a content that is independent of the players. But why would, or should, that be so?Why would the GM know any better than the players what is good for the fiction?But this can all be done on a failed check, or in framing new situations. Why does a successful check also have to be a vehicle for this? What control are the players entitled to have over the fiction?Couldn't the GM do this before the action declaration is framed?And why can the players not make this point to the GM - they declare an action different from what the GM thought they might, thereby pointing out that there's more than one way to achieve the same end! Why does the GM's view of what might be interesting fiction take priority?</blockquote>