D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Micah Sweet]

Play in which the GM embodies the setting, and the GM sets player goals, seems to me to be obviously GM-driven/GM-centred in a way that some other RPGing is not.

What if the GM embodies the setting, but the Players set their own goals? Is that possible from your perspective?

 

[pemerton]

Oh! This might be the keyword. Try to replace all occurrences of "action" with "attempt" in what I have said in the 5 or so last posts. I think that won't change my intended meaning, but it seem like that might be the word you would like to use to properly seperate it from hope. That is that in trad all causality between in fiction hope and an outcome go via in-fiction causality, and all causality between player and fiction happens by declaring that the character attempt something.

I don't see how this makes any difference.

In my Cortex+ Fantasy game, the player decides that their PC attempts to read the runes, hoping that they will reveal a way out. Exactly the same action declaration could happen in any other FRPG.

The difference between the resolution in the Cortex+ game and the resolution in my TB2e game (which was the same as what you are calling "trad"), is that in the former the declared action is resolved purely via a dice roll, whereas in the latter the declared action is resolved via the combination of a dice roll and a reference to the GM's notes.

To elaborate: in the former, the dice roll tells us if the PC is able to read and fulfil their hope; whereas in the latter, the dice roll tells us if the PC is able to read - whether the reading fulfils their hope will depend on whether what they were hoping for is what the GM has written down as part of prep.

As far as I can see, that's it as far as differences of process are concerned.

 

[pemerton]

The player decided what the runes said

This is not correct.

The player expressed a hope for what the runes said. Dice were then rolled, and that hope came true.

Saying that the player "decided" what the runes said is like saying that a player in D&D just "decides" that their PC kills an Orc, when we all know that the player can't decide that: all they can decide is that their PC fights the Orc.

 

[pemerton]

What if the GM embodies the setting, but the Players set their own goals? Is that possible from your perspective?

It seems obvious to me that if the GM embodies the setting, the players are not at full liberty to set their own goals.

Or, alternatively, they can set their own goals but it may be that failure is fore-ordained because of decisions made by the GM as embodying the setting.

 

[The Firebird]

I think this more effectively explain the issue with your reasoning:

I got a similar vibe from @Campbell 's exelent post a while back.

The resolution lie in that in this style of play your wishes as a player should be surpresed compared to the motivations of the character. This is similar to how some sim play is requiering the self dicipline of not to take meta knowledge into account when declaring actions.

If it is a common understanding of this, then the player agency you refer to evaporates. It is true that there is a mechanism for modifying the world outside standard in-fiction causality, but this mechanism is still based on character, not player. There are hence no player agency competing with character agency in this type of play as long as you are not a weasel

Hmm. I follow the discussion of why the stances differ, and I agree narrative games have different meta assumptions regarding goals. But I don't see it as fixing the problem.


I think the mechanism is based on player, not character, because you alter things in a way the character could never do.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is not correct.

The player expressed a hope for what the runes said. Dice were then rolled, and that hope came true.

Saying that the player "decided" what the runes said is like saying that a player in D&D just "decides" that their PC kills an Orc, when we all know that the player can't decide that: all they can decide is that their PC fights the Orc.

I explained what seems to be a leading trad perspective above in my reply to @hawkeyefan .

 

[The Firebird]

In-universe, the character expressed an idea of what the runes may be. Ultimately, it's the GM who decides what they are... in this case, the GM took that player's suggestion and, combined with the successful roll, decided that the idea was correct.

The player never had to be in author stance. The decision... the authorship... was made by the GM.

This is functionally identical to the player having author stance, imo. I raised the same point in my post.

 

[The Firebird]

This is not correct.

The player expressed a hope for what the runes said. Dice were then rolled, and that hope came true.

Saying that the player "decided" what the runes said is like saying that a player in D&D just "decides" that their PC kills an Orc, when we all know that the player can't decide that: all they can decide is that their PC fights the Orc.

This is also functionally identical. "You are allowed to author new fiction on a 10+" means the players are authoring fiction.

 

[Campbell]

What if the GM embodies the setting, but the Players set their own goals? Is that possible from your perspective?

If a player has to first sort of explore the setting through their character and often will have to engage in unrelated matters to pursue their goals instead of GMs designing situation with regard to those goals, I would call it less player driven than something like Burning Wheel but more player driven then a game where the GM is providing hooks for adventure modules. Not like its place on the spectrum matters all that much.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It seems obvious to me that if the GM embodies the setting, the players are not at full liberty to set their own goals.

Or, alternatively, they can set their own goals but it may be that failure is fore-ordained because of decisions made by the GM as embodying the setting.

So, you can try whatever you want, but sometimes events beyond your control complicated things?

That's life (even fantasy life in my play). You get to make your own choices, but there are no guarantees. Still seems plenty player-driven to me.