Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7599755" data-attributes="member: 4937">If someone purposes something to be true, and yet places no boundaries on, you have to assume that the first thing I'm going to try is reductio ad absurdum.   The boundary I purpose is at minimum, "And the DM agrees."   Yet this boundary was suggested to violate the separation between the player and GM's prerogative.  Thus, reduction to the absurd is not a logical fallacy, because we have no rule to suggest when or how the player's authorial power is to be kept in check, and players - unlike the GM - have no reason to not employ the tools provided to them to solve problems because that's the players role in the game.   Fundamentally, if you give the power to author things to the players with no limits or boundaries, you've put the GM hat on the player and they can then resolve everything by fiat.If that is just a bluff check, how does it have any authorial power?  I mean this is the sort of scene which in a movie, the protagonist walks by, and then the camera turns back to the guard who says, "Seemed like a nice guy, but my names not Joe."That may be true, but speaking as a GM, being asked to invent clues on the spot would be incredibly hard.  Games that I'm aware of that go down this route do not do either of these things, but instead assume clues are found automatically and checks are made (or narrative resources are spent) to interpret what the clue means.  That way, the GM can prepare the clues necessary for the scenario and you don't get into a situation where the player can keep trying different things until they finally browbeat the GM into inventing another clue.Yes, but these games tend to forgo most of the aesthetics of play normally associated with an RPG, and tend to take a form more resembling a story-telling game or a theater game.  And even they tend to have a token that is passed between the participants which indicates who currently has the authorial control, so as to break ties and avoid endless contradiction.I'm not saying that you can't have fun in a game of make believe, but it will very quickly stop being an RPG.  In particular, the problem with this is that in an RPG you are normally trying to achieve the experience of being Jayne Cobb in the episode "A Man Called Jayne".   But if you the player are the one introducing the mystery, and the conflict, and providing the resolution to it, then the since of wonder, mystery, emersion, fear, frustration, and so forth that Jayne experiences will be inaccessible to you.  It's one thing for the player to introduce a hook, "I'm a wanted outlaw." or "I had a botched heist on this world."   It's quite another for the player to introduce the actual conflict.Most karmic systems go back to my statement that games that have authorial control in the hands of the players in some way tokenize that control and force the players to pay for it.  For example, you may get to make a call to resolve a conflict using one of your 'chits', but if you do so, you have to give a 'chit' to the GM that they can then use to call an unexpected complication.   Often they also let a player do the reverse, introduce a complication into a conflict that they were otherwise winning, in order to get a 'chit' that they can use in a later scene.Or, it just sounds like a player uncreatively adopting Deadpool's backstory.   And again, sure, it might be fine for a player to begin play with this background and pay the appropriate character building resources to support that backstory, but introducing this into the middle of a game in response to the players imminent death is not really that fun for anyone.  If the player can solve problems by fiat, then there is no reason for the player to face problems.   You might as well play the old game were everyone writes a page in a notebook before advancing it along to the next player.   And if you've played that game for any reasonable period of time, you know well why that game is not even remotely as popular as RPing an usually becomes an exercise in frustration for everyone.I guess... to me it just sounds like a player who wants to have all the spotlight and does not realize that they are playing a cooperative game.</blockquote>

Verification