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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9082319" data-attributes="member: 6790260">That's...a pretty bold claim. Particularly given that one noteworthy form of DM prep is railroading (or, if you prefer, "prep written with the expectation that players follow the railroad.")DM prep is another form of fiat. What gave you the idea it was somehow not the DM authoritatively decreeing what simply is true?Really? So, for example, a player who has built a Silver Pyromancer, a character whose focus is doing damage with fire spells, isn't going to have any reaction whatsoever to being told, "oh, actually, you're in a space where fire spells do half damage now." I find this difficult to believe; I think this player, and a variety of other players, would respond rather strongly to things of this nature. I think you are severely over-stating your case.Rather, in order to achieve what you describe--players simply accepting a thing without much comment or criticism--the DM needs to build up the reason why there is or should be a place where fire spells deal half damage. Instead of simply declaring that it is true, or perhaps not declaring it and leaving it as a(n unpleasant) surprise for later, the DM has to metaphorically show their work. Now, they don't have to shout it from the rooftops and give a full Vaudeville show, but either this quirk needs to be called out openly, or the players need a clear and fair opportunity to find out (even if it just ends up being that they didn't do so), or, preferably, a trail of diegetic breadcrumbs leads to the reveal at least a little bit in advance.From there, I assert that players can do something very similar: openly discuss OOC what one's goal is, or (preferably) diegetically attempt things (see below on the success issue) within the world that would contribute to what you want to happen actually happening. Just as with the DM above, the player is constrained; neither one can simply fiat declare whatever they like, but rather, they must do work, building up from what is known, perhaps filling in some blanks along the way if such filling-in is reasonable and context-appropriate.That doesn't mean there aren't differences. Many things DMs can do freely, while players, if they can do them at all, usually must spend resources or take risks. But somethings also involve DMs effectively spending resources. Encounter-building is exactly that--and it is expected that the GM will not simply create unwinnable or trivial encounters, but will actually "use" the XP budget (as 4e put it) in a way that is reasonable and context-appropriate.And I, instead, would suggest that most instances of that are simply DM fiat, without actually giving the players a fair shake--which is pretty harmful to agency. When related stuff was brought up (IIRC it was Folk Hero back then, but the issue is the same), this whole "no, that doesn't apply here" was quite clearly sprung upon the player, rather than being the natural result of the DM building up to such a breakdown occurring.Also, I no longer know where the post was, but somewhere upthread, you made the argument that, effectively, if the player does not succeed (not cannot succeed, does not succeed), then their agency has been denied. This I flatly reject. Agency means having a sincere opportunity: the action attempted is agreed to be plausible by all parties (and no party denies plausibility without fairly-established justification), success is genuinely possible, the relative probabilities are reasonable for the situation and sufficiently communicated to all parties, and any adjudication that results from the attempt (success or failure) is reasonable both within the rules of play and within the fictional situation.</blockquote>

Verification