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="Hriston" data-source="post: 8491316" data-attributes="member: 6787503">I agree that in many cases a player's authority to roleplay their character may be abridged with respect to certain aspects of their character (e.g. what they think, what they do) and not render the PC completely unplayable, or if it does, not for so long a time as to have a negative impact on play for that player.I disagree though that this is what's happening in the normal play loop when the DM describes the environment. Thoughts are coming from the DM, yes, but the DM doesn't have the final word on what the PCs think in this case. The DM is telling the players some fiction about the game-world, e.g. that there is a door twenty feet in front of their PCs, and the players then imagine their PCs, including whatever thoughts they are having, in the situation the DM has described. The fiction thus imparted to the players consists of things known to the PCs, but I think this base level of knowledge (the game-board, if you will) is in a different category from the independent thoughts of the PCs that the players decide upon in step 2 of the basic pattern in reaction to the DM’s description. I mean, it’s a conversation game, so naturally the participants are going to be putting thoughts into one another’s heads.One that I’ve encountered quite a bit in a PbP context is “[My PC] would...” which sounds like a contingency, and I always want to ask, “If what?” or "Under what circumstances?" I find it annoying because it doesn’t feel like a fully committed declaration, and I have to sort of assume that the character really has done the thing their player said they would do in order to say what happens next.I'm not as averse to the words "try" or "attempt" though, as long as what the PCs are doing is actually trying or attempting something rather than simply doing it, as in "I try the door to see if it will open easily."I do my best to avoid the types of situations you've described here, especially the examples you've given of telling the players (or revising) what their PCs really do. If some information is hidden, I telegraph its presence, and I try to follow "say yes or roll the dice" and adjudicate without reference to secret backstory.I think there's a difference between hypothetical or aspirational action declarations and those that as [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER] stated the PCs "can't do". Why do the players aspire (for their PCs) to doing something they can't? I think this is nearly always because they lack a complete understanding of the fictional positioning. Since my preference is to say "yes" or roll the dice, there's a possibility that the PCs can succeed at any action declaration that's at least valid.</blockquote>

Verification