NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8013974" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't understand what you mean by the dice decide. And what you mean by comparing it to the GM decides.You seem to be asserting, or at lesat implying, that there is no differnce between tossing a coin to see which of us has to do the dishes and you getting to decide every time who has to do the dishes. But the difference between those two things is so obvious to children and parents the world over that I don't see how you could assert that they are the same.Here's another way to come at it: when [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER] uses the phrase GM decides he means the GM decides what happens next in the fiction. When you use the phrase the dice decide you seem to mean the dice are used to work out who gets to decide what happens next in the fiction. How are those equivalent, given that the subject matter of the decision is different in each case?If what you said was true, then there woudl be no difference between resolving combat using the D&D combat resolution framework and having the GM decide what the outcome is and telling the players. But I think that every RPGer has a very visceral grasp of the difference between those things.In each case the difference is between (i) one person getting to decide what happens and (ii) using a randomiser to decided who gets to decide what happens.This is not very helpful analysis. The bolded phrase is an output of action resolution and the exercise of participant agency: eg Can this character jump this chasm?  Can this character kill this orc? won't know until the action is resolved. So the phrase can't serve as an answer to questions about who has what sort of control over the fiction. Players in D&D exercise agency over the fiction by declaring actions for their PCs. The resulting influence on the fiction is not confined to their PCs. Eg (to borrow one of [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]'s examples) if the player declares I open the door and it is aready uncontentious that the door is unlocked, has working hinges, and is in the immediate proximity of the PC who is not in any way trapped or paralysed, then it becomes true in the fiction that the door is open.I'm sure there are some tables which treat such action declarations merely as suggestions to the GM to change the fiction, but I've never played at one as best I can recall.Again the analysis here is unhelpful. Impossible is not a self-actualising category. Someone has to make the call. Who gets to decide, at the table, that a tugboat can do this but not that? I explaind how, in the game I described, it was a player who was not the GM who did that.I'm not describing authorship. I'm providing an example of a non-GM participant deciding what sorts of action declaration pass the credibility test and hence can be resolved by engaging the resolution mechanics. The player isn't authoring anything in the sense of contributing new content to the fiction. S/he is helping to curat the fiction to make sure it remains coherent/consistent. I posted the example to rebut the assertion that the GM is uniquely responsible for this.But in any event, in a game whose main activity is collectively generating a shared fiction, what is the contrast you are drawing between authorship and agency?</blockquote>

Verification