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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8011852" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think this addresses [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER]'s point.(1) He is not talking about what happens to the PCs in the fiction. He is talking about what happens at the table.(2) At the table, he is not talking about the agency of the players to speak words like I try such-and-such. He is talking about the agency of the players to actually change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things. If the GM decrees that a change can't take place because such-and-such is impossible, the player has not exercised any agency. Their attempt at the exercise of agency has been blocked/negated by the GM.That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a thing.My own preference is not to block/negate players' agency in this way, which is why not far upthread I said that the issue of genre fidelity and consistency with ficitonal positioning is something that can be established by negotiation and consensus (ie players get to exercise agency here) and that action declarations that fit within genre and the established fiction are to be adjudicated via the appropriate procedures (which in the games I play allows plenty of room for player agency to change the fiction).It's for the same reason that I have been critical of the use of secret/unilateral GM information to declare actions automatically unsuccessful: this does not allow the players the agency of negotiation/consensus nor the agency of action resolution mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification