NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9118225" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I don't know what this nonsense is, nor why I and other posters have been moderated for far less. I don't really know what a "Casual GM" is, but I'm reasonably sure that I don't qualify, and I know several other posters in this conversation who don't, either. I expect that at points in your gaming history, there have been people at your table who had better ideas than you did. Based on what you're saying here, it sounds like you'd either deny that, or else you'd stick to the lesser idea because it was yours rather than incorporate anything anyone else offers. Right, so you don't want to yield control of the game content basically ever. That's perfectly fine as a preference, and if all participants know and accept it, then it's no harm no foul. There are other folks who enjoy collaboration. I said you were being silly. Your examples don't shed any light on the conversation. I mean, I don't know how you could possibly get that idea. I specifically talked about there being consequences on a failure. I mean, the parts you're criticizing here are the ones you came up with. I didn't mention a healer or free healing or a 10 GP bail. These are the ideas you come up with that your players can't beat, huh? I suppose that by default, it must be. Also, the best example. People tend to only notice player agency when it's missing, I think. And likely only when they've already seen it. A rule that can be used to oblige the GM to adjudicate for the players is an example. The Circles rule in Burning Wheel is such a rule. My familiarity to it is minimal as, from the BW family of games, I've only played Mouse Guard, and only a handful of times. But my understanding is that they work similarly, though I think it is more complex in BW. These kinds of rules exist specifically so that it's not the GM deciding everything. That's the whole point. So you're fighting it tooth and nail and trying to caricaturize it and reduce it to absurdity... but as others have pointed out, there are plenty of rules in D&D and similar games that work following the same basic process. I don't know if you're failing to make that connection or if you're ignoring it, but either way, you don't seem to be managing to follow along. My first post in this thread was that "Player agency is when a player gets to say what happens in the game" and though it's an imprecise definition (it probably could use something like "with the support of the rules"), I haven't seen anything said since that contradicts it.</blockquote>

Verification