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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8007784" data-attributes="member: 6696971">[USER=7016699]@prabe[/USER]I'm looking at the conversation between you and [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] (who has said pretty much exactly what I would have said) and I'm staggered in one sense, yet, in another, I've had similar conversations with other people on this board over the years that have invoked what you're invoking; a form of "Schrodinger's Captain."I've had enough of those conversations to know that there is something hardware-wise that differentiates us such that we're not able to communicate on this issue because I'm not sure I've ever had a successful conversation with anyone who invokes "Schrodinger's x" (there is a lens through which we view causal relationships and how they relate to gameplay that is fundamentally incongruent).Let me just say (and reiterate again) the following things:1)  Forget the initiating play exerpt.  It is ENTIRELY too nebulous and lacking in detail.  I know and you know only the faintest of things about it.  We can't be sure what happened there.2)  Instead, lets increase the resolution by adding or subtracting details sufficient to create a potential excerpt of play that we can actually discuss.  The only thing that matters are (a) the fictional positioning of the framing, (b) the player's action declaration, (c) the attendant mechanical resolution of that action, and (d) the GM's responsibility in adjudication and evolving the fiction.On (a):You keep saying the Captain of the Guard wasn't present for the meeting with the Burgermeister (even though he loves to watch the man cook).  That is a stipulation you are bringing in that doesn't need to be present for our hypothetical.  Obviously, if the Captain isn't present, the GM isn't going to use the captain and his relationship with the Burgermeister as the conduit for honoring the player's success.  That is self-evident!However, we can trivially account for this and conceive an alternative.  Neither the Captain, nor anyone else, is present.  With that stipulation, on to (b):(b)  Same action declaration by the PC; some derivative of "you're unfit to rule."(c)  Player succeeds.(d)  This time, with the same responsibilities for the GM, the Burgermeister says.  "I see.  I have a mind to call the guard just to see you hauled off in chains.  But ok, I'm unfit to rule.  Let us go address the people.  You and I.  I'll have my men wrangle together the people for a meeting in the square that my balcony portico overlooks (as he points to it).  I'll address them and tell them what you said.  We'll see how the feel about that.  I'll even let you address them!  When they don't respond well, I'll see you in those chains..."So what now?  How to fulfill your responsibility as GM?  SimpleThe PC has earned the right to continue their ability to plea their case, but this time in a completely public forum...to a crowd that  may be intimidated by the proceedings and the Burgermeister looking at them from on high with the legacy of brooking no dissent...or perhaps they'll be emboldened by the PC's bold, inspiring words, the folklore of the PCs' deeds to date, and their sheer numbers (the player's action declaration and the resolution mechanics will tell us how the public responds to the impromptu event).</blockquote>

Verification