Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8254827" data-attributes="member: 16814">I don't understand the question.  Of course when the GM is narrating a consequence they're telling the players what their concept of the fiction is.  They are granted the authority to do so in this regard, but only in this regard.  Well, they also have authority to do so when framing a scene.  Both, though, are much more tightly constrained in that you can only narrate within the scope of the stakes and/or actions of the PCs.  Let's imagine that the PC needs to cross a square patrolled by guards.  In Blades (switching from PbtA because I'm more comfortable with Blades), this scene is framed by the GM -- the GM has the authority to imagine and tell the player about this challenge.  However, this challenge is in direct response to a player stated goal -- it didn't exist until it was needed/thought of by the GM to provide an obstacle in response to a player stated need.  So, the GM here is absolutely telling the player what they think, but they couldn't think of it before this moment, or could only have thought of it loosely as a possible aid if such a situation arose as it would be useful.  The patrolled square isn't part of notes, or prior conjecture, but it is imagined and related by the GM.  The player then declares how they want this to work.  They can sneak across, and stakes will be set and a check made.  If a success, they sneak across and this is what happens.  If a failure, the GM, once again, gets to imagine something and tell the player about it (although, in Blades, the player has ways to defuse this).  However, once again, this failure must follow from what the player actually declared, and stick within the scope of the scene as established.  If the player decides to draw steel and slash their way across, that's also fine, and stakes are set, and now the consequence won't be being spotted, but attendant to the PC action.  Maybe they talk their way across -- same proceedure.  There's nothing outside of the initial framing to prevent or modify these actions -- nothing hidden to be discovered, and nothing about how the GM thinks the guards will react that impacts the success/failure of these approaches.  The GM has to wait until a failure state occurs to tell the player how they, the GM, thinks about the fiction.Contrasted with a more traditional style, where the guards all have combats statistics ahead of time, the number and placement of guards is established, potentially hidden information exists which can be discovered by the player.  Here, if the player wants to sneak across, the GM will look at their notes on the situation, or how they imagine the scene to be, and then decide if this is possible or not based on their concept of the fiction.  Same for fighting across, which now depends on the combat stats and positions of the guards.  Or talking, which depends on if the GM thinks the guards can be chatted up or bribed.  Any of these details might be able to be revealed to players by them asking questions, like "I observe the square from the shadows and see if the guards leave any gaps in their patrol routes," which prompts the GM to provide their answer to this question.   Or investigate guards to see if they're bribable, which prompts the GM to tell the players what they think about this.This is what I'm talking about, and what "playing to find out the GM's conception of the fiction" means.</blockquote>

Verification