It can't be a surprise that such a reductionist take makes the game look absurd.
Again, it was the example given.
The player cannot--repeat, CANNOT--just ask for "something at random." Like the GM, the player must remain consistent with what is known to be true. Maybe they push toward something new, maybe they just bring back up something old, but they can't simply contradict, and they definitely cannot just will reality to be whatever they want it to be, whenever they want it to be that way.
Ok, so an example was given. I look at the example, and point out some obvious things.
Ok.....then, I get told "oh there are like 25 OTHER unmentioned rules and like 25 OTHER "gentleman agreement' things that were not mentioned at all in the example, but must be enforced at all times. So....I wonder why all of this was not mentioned before to put the example in context.
Player says something reasonable that they want to do, which is consistent with the above (= the player "follows the fiction")
Ok....but are there any rules for what is "reasonable"? What is "reasonable"? Who gets to make the final call? And I'd guess your going to say the GM....so, the player goes back to having NO agency as the GM can always just say "no".
- GM frames a scene appropriate to point #1 that potentially enables point #2
Right, GM does what the player tells them to do, we have established this point.
The GM tells the player(s) what exactly has happened, and what the new situation is.
So if the GM can just decide whatever, so where is the player agency?
- Player thinks/asks about what's going on
- GM tells them (framing a scene)
- Player tries to do something that makes sense
- If flat yes (or flat no), go back to step 1; if neither, use the rules to resolve it (often, a roll)
- GM uses that result to tell the player reasonable consequences for their attempt
- Repeat from start (possibly with a different player)
That is what is happening. Every single time. You keep inventing wild, crazy nonsense that
doesn't even match the first point, which makes everything that comes after it
wrong.
Right...so the above apples to games like D&D too. Except 2 is "the DM describes the game reality around the character". And 3 is "the player can have the character attempt to do anything with the characters abilities in the fictional reality. And 5 is "the GM tells the player what happens 100%"
But...ok, this still does not address the example of "player keeps and eye out for family members, rolls a rule check, and the GM alters reality to the players wish and says "your bother is right there next to you".
Players can't just declare what they want at random.
So, yet again, this is exactly what happens in the example.
GMs can't just declare what they think should happen at random.
Yes they can. It's exactly what GMs always do nearly every second of game play. In your above, the GM is doing this for both 2 and 5.....and most of all 4.
Nobody has that much unbound freedom in this context. Both sides must make sense. If someone is truly trying to push for nonsense, they have already broken the rules.
If there were such rules, I'd guess they must be like 500 pages or more. But it seems a rule or two on a page that says "your game must make sense" would not be of any real help.
With
@pemerton's example of the dwarf and his brother, it is not,
at all, "I want to meet a relative in this random place, who will then give me everything I desire." You have failed before you even get to the
tenth word. Because it
isn't just a random place. The place they're in IS his hometown.
This is already known. If you had bothred to read Pemerton's posts, you would
know that Auxol IS Thurgon's hometown, a place where relatives of his have some authority. Of course he could expect to find some of his relatives there if he keeps an eye out for them...that's where they
live.
I will grant the example of "being in their hometown" is a bit vague, but we are not told they are in any specific place....so they could just be on a road somewhere.
To me it's like your saying "the players wish power can only effect an area the size of a 'hometown', so guess a mile or so, but not like "the whole galaxy".
And then you insert this utterly ridiculous notion about getting 25 healing potions from the brother. Nothing whatsoever like that occurs. At all. You keep harping on your invented examples like that, but nothing in what Pemerton said looks like that!
Right, I thought it was clear that was My Example. If I need to say it: that was my example.
Instead, it's just, "I'm on the lookout for members of my family, I want to talk with them and find out what's going on." So the GM frames a situation where, at some point along the PCs' walk, they pass a field where Thurgon's brother is located-
Right, we got the "player wished for something" and the "GM made it happen for them" down pat.
At no point did anything ridiculous like this "25 healing potions" thing come in. At no point was the player asking for something unreasonable--and if they had, they would be playing in bad faith, and told to stop or, if it gets out of hand, to leave.
And...wait....how is this any different then any GM doing anything any player does not like ever?
Likewise, if the GM is simply dictating what is true to the players, narrating the results of their actions without actually respecting the rules for how actions should be resolved, then the GM is being unreasonable and SHOULD be told to stop. Do you see how this relationship is reciprocal? All participants are required to obey the rules, and one of the rules is that you be reasonable and attempt actions (or frame scenes, for GMs) that are reasonable. The instant you start asking for ridiculous nonsense, no matter who you are, you have broken the rules.
This is just Word Salad though. It's endless unhelpful words on a page.
Player walks up to a house door and says "I look for the key under the doormat"...a Very Reasonable thing. Player gets a 100 on the roll rule whatever. The GM says "nope no key"...also a Very Reasonable thing. Both player and GM grab the rule book an point to the "reasonable rule"....and what, the game ends?
There is a whole chapter of Circles rules, which explain how obstacles are set, how dice pools are put together (including Affiliations and Reputations), and how success and failure are narrated. There is also a discussion of how Affiliations and Reputations are established as part of PC building or advancement, of how Contacts are established, and of how a Contact can turn into a Relationship.
Well, you did not include any of this for context. Though "not seeing family members at a single spot in the characters hometown" sure seems like a HUGE stretch to say that is an "obstacle".
No it's not. It's an example of a player declaring an action, of the dice pool being built and rolled to resolve that action, of the result being a success, and of the consequence of that success being established as part of the fiction.
Ok, you just said what I said. Player makes a wish/request/declaration/other word salad. Player rolls successful check. Dm does what the player wants/establishes what the player wants as part of the fiction.
Finding a pile of gold would generally be a Scavenger test. The difficulty for finding 1D of gold, in a place where gold might be found, is Ob 3. If a PC was in a treasury, one would expect the difficulty for finding a relatively small amount of gold to be less.
Ok, so a different rule but same effect? Player walks over to a random tree and says "I keep and eye out for a pile of gold". Player succeeds a scavenger check. GM says "you find a pile of gold under the tree". Same thing.
When are you saying I said this? I have not said this.
Well, I'd guess you will say it, for example, in response to the above scavenger test check for a pile of gold. I'd guess you are likely to say "Oh a player can't just say a pile of gold is just anywhere" and that is a Huge limit on where the player can "just say" a pile of gold is. So where can the player use the scavenger test ability to find gold then? Maybe ten places world wide? And only places, you as GM, say gold is there? So, this would be you saying the player can only shape teeny tiny bits of fiction once in a while.
I mean have players ever introduced an idea to your game on their own. Has anyone ever said something like “Maybe it was that necromancer we ran into a few sessions ago” and then you were like “wow, why didn’t I think of that?” and decided to make that so?
No. That is something you would see in a game with a Casual GM. The type of GM with a backwards baseball cap and a bottle of Mt. Dew, who when they hear the player mention the 'necromancer', will then say "woooah, cool story bro, I'm tottaly going to use that".
I'm the GM with a massive plan.
Like I don’t mean them responding to something you’ve introduced, like slaying a dragon that you placed in the game world. I mean them introducing something entirely new. An NPC family member or patron, maybe a villain of some sort. A family heirloom that played a prominent role in a character’s story.
Well, something in a backstory is pre approved by me first before getting in the game. And in any case I have 100% creative control over everything. So, sure a player can put a "Super Duper Sword of All Dragon Slaying".....annnnddddd, I will say is a dragon bane sword that does a bit of extra damage.
And sure they can give me the name and bare bones of an NPC in their background "My characters dad is a rich merchant", but then I have full control over everything.
That never happens in anyone’s game, stop being silly.
Even if you say it's silly....it would happen in silly games. Though also Cartoon games, Goofy games and Games that don't make sense. You can say it will never happen in your game....but there are hundreds of others where it can and will.
What I think you’re missing here is that if you fail the roll, it’s not just “oh no one’s available to help”, but that there’s a consequence of some sort. Maybe you do find your old friend… but they’re in jail. Or as you ask around town for your friend, you attract unwanted attention. There’s no simple “oh well, I failed, let’s move on”… each such roll is consequential.
Right, I get the idea that a player can never fail a roll and always gets what they want.
Player wishes to find a healer to heal them for free....but oh, no, the healer is in jail. Bail is 10 gold. Yawn. Character pays the bail and gets their free healing. Exciting game play for some.
It’s a pretty fine example of player agency supported by mechanics.
It's the worst example I've ever seen.
A player can occasionally make a roll to 'do agency' under the massive restrictions of the vague rules, and the total control of the GM to do very, very, very slight, tiny and minor effects...under total control of the GM, sometimes "with a cost".
Then everyone says "wow, look at that Player Agency!"
