Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9087030" data-attributes="member: 42582">I posted <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/what-is-player-agency-to-you.698831/post-9086370" target="_blank">a long reply</a> to your question upthread, which followed many other posts with explanations/descriptions of various lengths; and then reiterated it in the post I've quoted: the function of the GM, in 4e D&D (as I read the rulebooks and play it), in Burning Wheel, in Torchbearer, is to frame scenes and establish consequences. It ensures that there are stakes, and thus permits there to be exciting game play.Upthread you mentioned something about "living rulebooks", you now reiterate "fill in the blanks in the rulebooks", and I don't know what you're talking about.I told you the key Burning Wheel action resolution rules in my post, and here they are again:In Burning Wheel, an action declaration consists of intent and task. If nothing that matters to the player is at stake, the GM says "yes" and the intent and task are both realised. If the GM does not say "yes", then the dice must be rolled. The task and intent, taken together, establish what skill or ability will be tested. The GM is responsible for setting the difficulty, though there are a lot of example difficulties to guide this - in Burning Wheel, setting consistent obstacles over time is one important aspect of world building that the GM has to do. If the player succeeds on their test, then intent and task are both realised. If the player fails, then the GM is obliged to narrate something that negates the intent, and which may also but need not include failure at the task. Because we are only rolling if something that the player has prioritised is at stake, there is already some relationship between intent and stakes, and this will provide the cue and context for narrating a consequence.There's no gap in those rules. They satisfy [USER=99817]@chaochou[/USER]'s desiderata from upthread:*No agreement that the GM / MC / narrator can unilaterally disregard the rules - I've just set out the rules, and the GM is not entitled to unilaterally disregard them (and in a more recent post I noted that the players cant "say 'yes' to themselves"; *Transparent rules and processes that offer guaranteed outcomes (good and bad) - the rules I've just set out are transparent, as is the process they establish: the players know, if they are called upon to roll the dice, what is at stake (their intent, and the player-authored priorities that it flows from or relates to), what the outcome will be if they succeed, and what the GM will thwart if they fail; *Transparent goals for characters (often through authorship of them by the players) - I've already talked in this thread about the ways the players in BW establish player priorities (Beliefs, Instincts, traits, relationships, Affiliations, etc); *Facilitation of that authorship through group creation of setting and/or situation such that character goals are given meaning and context by player choice, not secret GM backstory - I've provided multiple examples of this (Thurgon's knightly order; Jobe's brother turned to evil and their ruined wizard's tower; and as further examples, in our Torchbearer game, the role of the Dreamwalker's ranger friend and enemy Megloss; and in our 4e game, the player of the Emergent Primordial establishing that PC's relationship to Chan, Queen of Good Air Elementals; etc).What are the "gaps" you are talking about that you think the GM is filling?</blockquote>

Verification