Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9090285" data-attributes="member: 42582">Let's call the situation S. Let's call the range of reasonable outcomes R(O). It's true that S constrains R(O). The point that [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER] has made, and that I have also made, and have illustrated with my post 1891 upthread, is that - in a game of imagination - S can be varied. And the possible variations of S obviously, and very significantly, relax the constraints on R(O).Now if the GM has some S in mind, and does not want to vary that, that may be the GM's prerogative (at least at some, perhaps many, tables). But a GM who does that, therefore forms the view that the player's desired outcome falls outside R(O), and therefore tells the player that their desired outcome does not come to pass is not enhancing, or increasing, or even upholding, player agency. They are exercising their own agency as author of the shared fiction. In particular, they are insisting on their own authorship of S as they have envisaged it.This is a very GM-driven style of RPGing.This is one reason why early editions of D&D (and some other classic games, eg Traveller) include reaction tables - there is always a chance of an enthusiastic reaction, such as Eomer's to Aragorn.I personally prefer to reframe the reaction outcome as a resolution of a player's declared action (eg to make a good impression, by announcing lineage and loyalties). But by using dice rolls ("say 'yes' or roll the dice"), the full range of interesting possibilities is kept open.I am not the biggest fan of fiat abilities, because I think dice rolls produce a more compelling pattern of success and failure (Robin Laws calls this the pass/fail cycle, and suggests that it is inherent to all stories). But where fiat abilities are tightly rationed (eg as is the case for Prince Valiant Storyteller Certificates), then they allow the player to really stake their claim - This is where I care, and will produce the outcome I want!In the context of 5e D&D, the "rationing" consists in being able to choose only one background, and having the fictional circumstances that enliven it be reasonably narrow. I think this design is less compelling than Prince Valiant, as the player makes their choice at the start of play and in anticipation, rather than at the moment of truth as happens i Prince Valiant - but this would just be one way in which D&D design tends to favour "comfortable" over "compelling", and probably not the most invidious.See just above - 5e isn't designed to best fit my preferences; but given how it presents backgrounds, I don't think it's particularly hard to make them work.</blockquote>

Verification