Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8648882" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm puzzled about what you mean by this, given your insistence upthread that there are many &quot;Zs&quot; that correspond to the single R of the core rules.Who is using that wording?As I read [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s posts, he is saying that the principal constraint on the Gm is the Gm's conception of what makes sense in the evolving fiction, which is not much of a constraint at all.Who determines what leads are gained by &quot;asking around&quot;? Who answers the question as to whether or not this dragon has a ton of gold? Who decides the alternative, that a dragon just wouldn't follow? Presumably if the players are conjecturing that a dragon with a hoard might be in the mountains to the north, they are happy that it follows!If we're discussing how the participants in a game play that game, and we posit that a particular game move depends on something being known, I don't see how addressing which player has to know it is separate. It's fundamental! I mean, you couldn't explain the game hangman by saying The word is known before guesses are made without also specifying who it is who knows what the word is.So, as I read this, what you are saying is that The player of the ranger says, more-or-less in character, &quot;We should check out if there are any dragons in those northern mountains!&quot; and this obliges the GM to consider what to tell that player about what their PC does or might know which the GM does in part by exercising authorial power in respect of the setting.As [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] said, that just seems straight-up-and-down simulationist play. I don't really get why it's taken dozen of pages to get a clear statement of this.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8648882, member: 42582"] I'm puzzled about what you mean by this, given your insistence upthread that there are many "Zs" that correspond to the single R of the core rules. Who is using that wording? As I read [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER]'s posts, he is saying that the principal constraint on the Gm is the Gm's conception of what makes sense in the evolving fiction, which is not much of a constraint at all. Who determines what leads are gained by "asking around"? Who answers the question as to whether or not this dragon has a ton of gold? Who decides the alternative, that a dragon just wouldn't follow? Presumably if the players are conjecturing that a dragon with a hoard might be in the mountains to the north, [i]they[/i] are happy that it follows! If we're discussing how the participants in a game play that game, and we posit that a particular game move depends on something being known, I don't see how addressing [i]which player[/i] has to know it is separate. It's fundamental! I mean, you couldn't explain the game hangman by saying [i]The word is known before guesses are made[/i] without also specifying [i]who it is[/i] who knows what the word is. So, as I read this, what you are saying is that [i]The player of the ranger says, more-or-less in character, "We should check out if there are any dragons in those northern mountains!"[/i] and this [i]obliges the GM to consider what to tell that player about what their PC does or might know[/i] which the GM does in part by exercising authorial power in respect of the setting. As [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] said, that just seems straight-up-and-down simulationist play. I don't really get why it's taken dozen of pages to get a clear statement of this. [/QUOTE]

Verification