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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6518215" data-attributes="member: 42582">The post to which I replied stated the following:I then gave some instances of cases in which I, or players whom I GM, have powers that their characters do not and cannot have - namely, the power to dictate religious truths which, in D&D, include truths about the disposition of certain divine beings.Perhaps that wasn't the sort of power that you had in mind, but given that you seemed to be intending a general attack upon the compatibility of player authorship with immersion in character, I'm not sure how I was meant to know that.Given that these are the sorts of examples that [MENTION=87792]Neonchameleon[/MENTION] gave, they are precisely the point. And the use of the word "knowledge" causes needless confusion.In the fiction, the PC knows the tenets of his/her religion. But at the table there typically is nothing to know - the gameworld is a fiction, with no real existence, and the bulk of things that are true within that fiction obtain that status by being authored. So when a player wants to "know" what it is that his/her PC knows, s/he can't just introspect - s/he has to make stuff up. Which is player authorship - a player authoring material that becomes part of the shared fictional content.The question of GM veto is also orthogonal. Nearly all RPGs that permit extensive player authorship also preserve GM veto. This is because, in anything like a traditional RPG, it is the GM who has overall custody of the gameworld and its backstory, and is responsible for making the whole thing fit into a coherent whole.For the best discussion I know of this responsibility, and the relevant considerations on how it can be discharged, I recommend Luke Crane's Adventure Burner. (I think it is more insightful that FATE Core, or than anything I've read from Robin Laws.)This is a new claim - about solving problems.Take literally, it is always true that a player solves problems in ways that his/her PC could not - for instance, the player solves the problem by rolling dice and talking to people, whereas typically for the PC this would be ineffective.If you mean that a player using mechanics that don't correspond to things his/her PC is doing in the fiction must break immersion in character, then I know this to be false too. And I know it to be false even if the mechanics in question are player authorship mechanics, because I have seen players use player authorship mechanics as part of action resolution without losing immersion in character. There is no simple connection between the psychological state of immersion, and the psychological process of using RPG mechanics.</blockquote>

Verification