Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9677573" data-attributes="member: 71699">On subsequent reflection, while it remains true that a job of comparing seems incommensurate with that of extrapolating, my likening of MC and GM calls for roll was accurate.I said that &quot;the AW MC has the somewhat similar job of saying when a move is invoked&quot; &quot;...because in both cases one participant (MC, DM) has the job of saying whether to call for a roll.&quot; This was in response to a notion that a procedure that calls for a roll only if consequences are discerned &quot;is a rule for GM-centred play: the GM decides whether or not a declared action is apt to have consequences, and on that basis calls for a roll, or doesn't&quot; and &quot;the only constraint is what the GM thinks will, or should, or might, happen next.&quot;There was in that a shifting of focus that wound up comparing the MC decision to call for a roll with the GM extrapolation of consequences. The likening I claimed was between MC decision to call for a roll and GM decision to call for a roll. Both are equally capable and constrained in reliably discerning on the one hand if what player said fit with description in a rule, and on the other hand if whomever holds the right to is liable to narrate consequences. The way this is commonly played needs only the commitment to or confidence in there being consequences as the input into the exercise of discretion.A comparison I didn't make, but that could be made, is between GM choice over what they infer or extrapolate, and player choice over what they do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 9677573, member: 71699"] On subsequent reflection, while it remains true that a job of comparing seems incommensurate with that of extrapolating, my likening of MC and GM calls for roll was accurate. I said that "the AW MC has the somewhat similar job of saying when a move is invoked" "...because in both cases one participant (MC, DM) has the job of saying whether to call for a roll." This was in response to a notion that a procedure that calls for a roll only if consequences are discerned "is a rule for GM-centred play: the GM decides whether or not a declared action is apt to have consequences, and on that basis calls for a roll, or doesn't" and "the only constraint is what the GM thinks will, or should, or might, happen next." There was in that a shifting of focus that wound up comparing the MC decision to call for a roll with the GM extrapolation of consequences. The likening I claimed was between MC decision to call for a roll and GM decision to call for a roll. Both are equally capable and constrained in reliably discerning on the one hand if what player said fit with description in a rule, and on the other hand if whomever holds the right to is liable to narrate consequences. The way this is commonly played needs only the commitment to or confidence in there being consequences as the input into the exercise of discretion. A comparison I didn't make, but that could be made, is between GM choice over what they infer or extrapolate, and player choice over what they do. [/QUOTE]

Verification