Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7732293" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, you said:But the imaginary clouds aren't an observable fact the player can look at. That's why I assumed you meant "character".If you're talking about the player, the player looks at the table, the dice, the GM, the words written on some bits of paper, etc. And though some combination of such things arrives at the (shared) state of imagining a place with clouds in its sky.That sounds odd - as GM I take it that if certain whether is established in the fiction, then I have to adjudicate that as a possible factor in action resolution (depending on the details of the particular RPG system). The player wants to climb a wall. In the fiction, it's not established how smooth the wall is (eg it might have very well-maintained mortar between its blocks, or be poorly maintained with lots of grippable gaps).As GM, I could roll a die to determine that before the player makes the climb check. Or the player could roll the check, and if it fails the lack of gaps could be part of a narration of the failure.From the point of view of mechanical gameplay, there seems to be no special benefit in making two rolls rather than one. From the pont of view of "inhabitation" of the PC, having the player make the roll, and (in failing) "discover" that the wall is too gapless for him/her to climb, might actually be superior, as the player lives through the uncertainty of his/her PC's experience, and the discovery of the difficulty of climbing.The phrase "ulterior motive" seems misplaced, by the way. An "ulterior" motive is hidden. When the GM frames the players into some situation that engages them (via their PCs), the motive is not hidden. It's transparent.Is your last sentence based on experience or conjecture?Here's my description, based on my actual play experience: if the game is played based on the GM's interpreation of internal causality and decisions about what s/he thinks is interesting to make salient (given that the gameworld is a story/fiction related to the players by the GM), then the players have to engage with what the GM thinks is interesting, whatever s/he wants to do with his her PC. If the GM makes an effort to follow the players' leads, as evinced through their build and play of their PCs, then the players get to actually explore and express their characters as they conceive of them.I could equally say - the risk in a preauthored game is that it is (i) a railroad and (ii) boring. Presumably you take steps to make sure your game isn't boring. Well, likewise, the risk you are afraid of is not one that troubles my games.Suppose that to be true (board rules preclude speculating about that) - it doesn't follow that the same is true for the imagined fantasy world.In providential literature (eg LotR), the protagonists don't feel they're being toyed with - they either have faith in the divine plan for the world (and in this context, the greatest sin is a lack of hope - eg Denethor), or they rebel against that plan (and in this context, the greatest sin is hubris - eg Saruman). Eithe way, choices aren't meaningless because they contribute to the plan ("even Gollum may have a part to play, before then end").</blockquote>

Verification