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

[pemerton]

I'd say it does, in that the player is being pulled from Actor stance into Author stance whether he wants to be or not.

The only meaning of those terms that I'm familiar with is [URL='http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/4/this one[/url]:

• In Actor stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions using only knowledge and perceptions that the character would have.
• In Author stance, a person determines a character's decisions and actions based on the real person's priorities, then retroactively "motivates" the character to perform them. (Without that second, retroactive step, this is fairly called Pawn stance.)

And the player is fully in Actor stance.

 

[pemerton]

For that matter, unless there was a pointer (on the scrawled sign), why would I "hope" it was an exit sign?

I don't understand your obsession with exit signs, which to the best of my knowledge are a modern invention.

There are very many ways that writing can reveal information about a way out. I've posted some examples in this thread. So have @clearstream and @Gimby. Gimby and I both referenced some of the examples found in the LotR Moria sequence, none of which involves an exit sign.

 

[pemerton]

The player is acting through the mechanic to change the fiction

Nothing is being "changed".

 

[pemerton]

Oh, I must have missed that!? I have not recognised that at all!

I tought they repeatedly stated the character cannot determine the meaning of the rune, but the player can, and hence there is a difference? (This seem to strongly contradict the notion that the character determined the meaning of the runes, as the claim is they plain cannot do such a thing)

You may wish to review this post and those leading up to it: D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

 

[gban007]

I'm just a bit fed up with you (and other posters) misdescribing it.

I mean, you say it's not hard to understand that it is not map-and-key, GM-authority-over-backstory based. And then you say that the character "manipulated reality" and talk about "quantum runes".

It's doubly frustrating because you post apologetics and special pleading for similar phenomena in your own play.

To be fair, Micah did apologize for the manipulated reality bit, though I think their concern around 'manipulated reality' does come down tp that player authorship vs DM authorship divide you mentioned previously.
On the quantum runes part, not sure what they meant at it or how you feel it is musdescribed, to my mind the framing you've given said their were runes, their nature was not yet defined / authored, and the play process allowed them to be defined / authored, and by my understanding of what you've described, if the roll failed they may have stayed undefined as the scene may have changed enough that they were no longer relevant.
But until defined, there were a whole lot of possibilities of what the runes may have represented, and the play process determined what it actually was, but until that point, there nature was uncertain, and so perhaps could have been described as quantum, given a usage of quantum that has entered common speech as such as describing uncertainty of nature until properly observed (and I dont know enough to comment on how a accurate a usage of quantum that is).
Similarly though, on this basis could describe the outcome of a declared attack in dnd to be quantum, albeit with potentially narrower range of possibilities, until roll made and outcome determined - is it about hit, strong hit, killing hit, miss, fumble etc.
Personally I find the process for MHRP as described an interesting one, and one I think id enjoy as a player, but may have challenges shifting mindset to run properly as a GM, but as I stretch myself more playing games with likes of triumph and despair and having to determine things on the spot more, the better equipped I may become one good thing about system being that I may only need to concern about such half the time, I.e. when a player fails check or does something to trigger a move on my side, and the players can shoulder the burden the other half

 

[pemerton]

You appear to be confusing if people are talking about fiction or reality. From my reading it appeared obvious that @Crimson Longinus talked about existence from an in-fiction perspective.

And from an in-fiction perspective the runes say whatever it is that they say. The two cases are thus identical. (Which is unsurprising - that will be true for all non-absurd RPGs, and the only absurd RPGs I know off the top of my head are Toon, and Over the Edge though the latter is more subtle I think.)

But the method of establishment is what is under scrutiny here! In the cleric example the existence was handwaved. I thought the point of the sentence you quoted here was to point out that this handwaving was inaproperiate in this context.

<snip>

a character can decide to go check out the temple. A player can hence declare that their character go check out the temple without any dissociation. This declaration however might prompt GM authorship of temple details. As the player don't even know if authorship happened as part of this declaration, that cannot change their experienced absence of dissociation.

A player can declare "My character reads the runes" without any so-called "dissociation".

If you are now saying that "simulationist" play depends on the GM keeping it secret from the player that the authorship of the cleric was prompted by the action declaration, you seem to be agreeing with @chaochou that simulationism is just a euphemism for illusionism.

 

[Enrahim]

And from an in-fiction perspective the runes say whatever it is that they say. The two cases are thus identical. (Which is unsurprising - that will be true for all non-absurd RPGs, and the only absurd RPGs I know off the top of my head are Toon, and Over the Edge though the latter is more subtle I think.)

Yes?

A player can declare "My character reads the runes" without any so-called "dissociation".

Yes?

If you are now saying that "simulationist" play depends on the GM keeping it secret from the player that the authorship of the cleric was prompted by the action declaration, you seem to be agreeing with @chaochou that simulationism is just a euphemism for illusionism.

No? The GM could very well tell openly if they are actually authoring or not, without that materially changing the situation as I see it. The absence of this information flow just makes the key point in the example clearer. (In the scenario with that information flow, philosophical questions regarding differing level of dissociation in the case of the prompt triggering authoring vs not triggering authoring could be raised to muddle the water. By narrowing the example the way I did it is clear there cannot be any added dissociation from the implicitely prompted autorship)

 

[pemerton]

I thought I was the one pointing out that difference, while @clearstream appeared to assert it didn't really matter, as the GM end up with chips anyway?

You posted "You surely not saying that the players author the entire world by asking the GM to run a game for them?" And my point is that no, @clearstream is not saying that.

 

[Enrahim]

You may wish to review this post and those leading up to it: D&D General - [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

Yes? I see the verb "hope" used quite consistently for what the character is doing? Not author or determine? I think noone questions a character's ability to hope?

Edit1: That the participants of the game then used this hope to determine the outcome is on them, not the character?

Edit2: And it is also a player that determined what the hope was..

Edit3: Ah, I found this "in no way did they decide what the runes would be or do." used as a contrast. So ok, I think you can manage to extract something similar to "there could be contrieved a way in which it could be said that the character decided what the runes would do". That was not my reading of this passage though. I would rather pass that of as a fairly ok and simple way to say something that would require significantly more words to state precisely. (Edit 4: And your linked to post appear to be exactly an attempt at such a more precise formulation)

 

[Enrahim]

You posted "You surely not saying that the players author the entire world by asking the GM to run a game for them?" And my point is that no, @clearstream is not saying that.

Ah, so you just supported my statement? I guess that is nice of you, sorry I missed that!