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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9210662" data-attributes="member: 71699">It's certainly part of what I intended to imply concerning "just so long as one includes the prospect that the superior agreement might have been imperfectly formed" and in a subsequent post "cases we are dealing with readily stray outside our promises." Consider -During an ordinary shopping expedition in New Pavis a player asks [RQ7] "How much for a bison-hair cloak" and their GM consults a table and says "Three lunars" so the player deducts three lunars from the total on their character sheet and writes there "bison-hair cloak".Why don't they - every time - get into a discussion about the availability and costs of bison-hair cloaks in New Pavis? If they have to agree in every moment, don't they need to have that discussion?It is Fire season and the group is in Balazar. A player asks about the weather. GM rolls a 7 and says that it is hot, clear, no precipitation.Is it expected that - every time - the group will get into a discussion about whether that is true? That doesn't describe very well play that I have participated in and observed of RuneQuest. But these examples have been chosen to represent what I suppose for most groups is safe ground. The tables in question give clear direction as to what to add to ongoing play. Suppose a player asked a follow-up, like "How hot, exactly?" or "Can I tell if it will rain tomorrow?" Or if due to ongoing conflict GM had earlier described that goods are scarce in New Pavis?You used the word "agreement" and I think that requires more to be said about "our promises". Our promises are not of the form that when asked what the weather is we have agreed to say it is "hot" - i.e. it's not a commitment that a specific detail will be true. Rather it's a promise that we'll follow the rules and where in doing so we roll on a weather table that indicates "hot, clear, no rain", we have agreed up-front to work that "hot, clear, no rain" result into our ongoing game state.[USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s examples I take to test where we "stray outside" our up-front promises, which will often happen because of the open-ended contents of [imagine].No table result is available here, and it's interesting to ask what kinds of things can the GM say in response to that request? Can they say anything they like?"Sure, but you'll have to sacrifice a finger for each arrow.""Sure, but after doing it, it turns out that the arrows mind-control their possessor. I'll roleplay your character now.""Sure, but [in the anticipated encounter] it turns out the werewolf is invulnerable to silvered weapons."To my mind, we see good evidence that any moment-to-moment agreements are made within the bounds of prior over-arching agreements. (Assuming the inclusion of agenda and principles in contemporary game texts were not evidence enough!)No in-the-moment agreement is being made here: we're just applying an up-front agreement to follow the rules within human limitations. "Oh, I forgot the rule says X, we need to retcon that slightly." I can extend the example to have GM ignore that up-front agreement "Nope, too late, I don't care that it's a rule. They get surprise!" That would be a negotiation... it's absence from the example reinforces my point.This is a good example of what Baker means by "negotiation" - as was the example above. Both should make clear that said "negotiation" is not in conflict with overriding up-front promises. Perhaps it could be better described by a word like "application".I would just slightly modify this to say that we come to agreements in the moment only to the extent that doubt exists. There are plenty of things we don't come to agreement on. For exampleGM "Roll a d6"Player, rolling "5"GM "Nope, I'm calling that a 2"Players "Huh?"No one expects moment to moment agreement as to the number plainly visible on a thrown die.... but what if it were cocked? how did we decide to call for that roll in the first place? and what would a 5 (or 2!) be interpreted to mean?</blockquote>

Verification