Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8496552" data-attributes="member: 71699">Thank you, I feel you and [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] explained the dividing line far better than I did. In a game where players are explorers rather than authors of the world, &quot;say 'no', and don't roll&quot; is at times the right response to cases that still fall within genuine participation. That is because there may be things unknown to players, but known to DM. The stakes - whether narrative or simulation - are sometimes not fully clear to the players. Even so, players can make choices that adjust them: changing a &quot;no&quot; to a roll, a roll to a better DC or &quot;yes&quot;, a &quot;yes&quot; to a roll, etc. This is the normal mode of D&amp;D.In a game where authorship is shared, mysteries are equally unknown to the group and as you say, why prefer the DM? Even so, the group must have something in mind that answers the question: &quot;say 'yes', or roll?&quot; It may be they cannot see that a declaration is valid, so as a group they might say &quot;no&quot; or as you put it require expansion to get to &quot;yes&quot; or &quot;roll&quot;. In any case, this is not the normal mode of D&amp;D.In both these modes, I do not see the stakes as unable to be impinged upon by player choices. To me, some of the most interesting player or group choices are those that change the stakes in play. Including worsening them! Is it that you require players to commit to the stakes as articulated, or can they position themselves in the fiction in a way that could impinge upon the stakes? Maybe that is a more fundamental division?As to whether D&amp;D precludes the second mode. As written it does mechanically. An example being ability checks where players in most cases aren't empowered to call for one or set its terms. And as written it does narratively, casting DM firmly as storyteller. What is gained is much as [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] describes. Characters live in the world, without knowing everything about that world.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8496552, member: 71699"] Thank you, I feel you and [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] explained the dividing line far better than I did. In a game where players are explorers rather than authors of the world, "[I]say 'no', and don't roll[/I]" is at times the right response to cases that still fall within genuine participation. That is because there may be things unknown to players, but known to DM. The stakes - whether narrative or simulation - are sometimes not fully clear to the players. Even so, players can make choices that adjust them: changing a "[I]no[/I]" to a roll, a roll to a better DC or "[I]yes[/I]", a "[I]yes[/I]" to a roll, etc. This is the normal mode of D&D. In a game where authorship is shared, mysteries are equally unknown to the group and as you say, why prefer the DM? Even so, the group must have something in mind that answers the question: "[I]say 'yes', or roll?[/I]" It may be they cannot see that a declaration is valid, so as a group they might say "[I]no[/I]" or as you put it require expansion to get to "[I]yes[/I]" or "[I]roll[/I]". In any case, this is not the normal mode of D&D. In both these modes, I do not see the stakes as unable to be impinged upon by player choices. To me, some of the most interesting player or group choices are those that change the stakes in play. Including worsening them! Is it that you require players to commit to the stakes as articulated, or can they position themselves in the fiction in a way that could impinge upon the stakes? Maybe that is a more fundamental division? As to whether D&D precludes the second mode. As written it does mechanically. An example being ability checks where players in most cases aren't empowered to call for one or set its terms. And as written it does narratively, casting DM firmly as storyteller. What is gained is much as [USER=6801845]@Oofta[/USER] describes. Characters live in the world, without knowing everything about that world. [/QUOTE]

Verification