Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7732717" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm not sure what you think I'm ignoring? I understand how to declare action delcarations unsucccessful, without rolling, based on my conception of what would make for good fiction; I just don't do it.And as I posted just upthread of this, I think there is a big question here that I'm hoping we can now address - a lot of the distractions and underbrush having been cleared away:&nbsp;[MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] have said that the GM can change backstory up to the moment it is revealed/established in play; but they also clearly think that the GM can rely on unrevealed, secret backstory to declare failures in the way I've described just above.What governs the GM's decision in this respect? If the GM sticks to the secret backstory when s/he likes it; but then changes it when s/he thinks of something s/he likes better - so that the players' decision to search for the map in such-and-such a place will automatically fail, with no check, if the GM decides to stick to his/her original idea that the map is actually on the other side of the world; but may succeed, if the GM decides that this new suggestion is better - then how is that not railroading? It is the GM who is deciding all the outcomes, based on what s/he thinks does or doesn't make for good fiction.How do you envisage this working, in practical terms? Do you announce to the players &quot;Hey, in today's session your action declarations won't really matter - just focus on the story I'm telling you&quot;?I can understand playing different sorts of RPGs, but I don't really see how what you suggest is meant to fit into a single &quot;game&quot;/campaign.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7732717, member: 42582"] I'm not sure what you think I'm ignoring? I understand how to declare action delcarations unsucccessful, without rolling, based on my conception of what would make for good fiction; I just don't do it. And as I posted just upthread of this, I think there is a big question here that I'm hoping we can now address - a lot of the distractions and underbrush having been cleared away: [MENTION=6688277]Sadras[/MENTION] and [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] have said that the GM can change backstory up to the moment it is revealed/established in play; but they also clearly think that the GM can rely on unrevealed, secret backstory to declare failures in the way I've described just above. What governs the GM's decision in this respect? If the GM sticks to the secret backstory when s/he likes it; but then changes it when s/he thinks of something s/he likes better - so that the players' decision to search for the map in such-and-such a place will automatically fail, with no check, if the GM decides to stick to his/her original idea that the map is actually on the other side of the world; but may succeed, if the GM decides that this new suggestion is better - then how is that not railroading? It is the GM who is deciding all the outcomes, based on what s/he thinks does or doesn't make for good fiction. How do you envisage this working, in practical terms? Do you announce to the players "Hey, in today's session your action declarations won't really matter - just focus on the story I'm telling you"? I can understand playing different sorts of RPGs, but I don't really see how what you suggest is meant to fit into a single "game"/campaign. [/QUOTE]

Verification