Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 7326887" data-attributes="member: 59082">Aside from that I don't see how the processes are "completely" different, the main difference between your approach and the "traditional" approach (for lack of a better term), seems to be the degree to which the player has power over whether the rock exists, where it is, etc, and also the degree to which the GM doesn't have power, yes?In the traditional approach, the player declares what action he or she wants to take, and the GM decides how resolution will occur in whatever fashion he or she deems appropriate given the situation (that is, uses judgement), and the player resolves the action through either doing it ("I pick up the rock"), rolling dice, etc. But it seems that in your approach, one or both of two things is true: 1) the player has more power over whether the rock is there, and where it is, and 2) the GM has less power over the same, and/or is constrained by the rules.OK, main problem here is that you seem to take issue with the very idea of the GM as "omnipotent," as if that means he or she is inherently tyrannical. It seems that you are an "RPG Libertarian" ;-). I would argue that one of a GM's main obligations is "others' desires about the content of the shared fiction." The power of the GM is held in check by the degree to which the players enjoy the game experience, so if a GM wants to continuing GMing, then they won't (or shouldn't) abuse their power.A player only has no agency if the GM exercises their omnipotence in every moment - that is, simply tells a story. Then it ceases to be an RPG and becomes story-time, albeit in second person narration.I think you're missing the point re: such analogies; they aren't about "explaining the limits of GM power" but explaining player agency. A player's agency in the fictional world is roughly the same as our agency in the real world, and even slightly more so, as I explained. The difference, though, is that in the fictional world, there's a GM - who is akin to a hypothetical supreme being in our world.Or a better way to put it, I think, is that the GM "play's" the setting as a kind of conscious, interactive entity. In other words, the GM is the setting, and the setting is the GM, just as the GM is all NPCs.Responsively. The "script" is co-created, improvised, along certain guidelines which vary in terms of how strongly they are adhered to (this is where "railroading" comes in). All of which could be applied to a number of approaches - not just "indie." In other words, I don't see how that description applies to indie and not traditional. Again, to me it is more useful to think of this on a spectrum rather than as binary (e.g. indie vs. traditional).I stand corrected. Sure. Where I think we are differing, or at least explaining two different styles along the spectrum, is the degree to which the player has power in deciding/determining whether the mace is there, without having previously said they placed it there within either their backstory or game play. That's not really what I'm saying, and I think you know this. You continue to push the "traditional" view into a kind of absolutist GM dictatorship...I can't speak for anyone else, but I don't think anyone is arguing for that. I think whether my PC finds the mace depends upon any number of factors: 1) Is it there as part of backstory? 2) Did I place it there in game play? 3) Did some NPC, via the GM's choice, find it and take it? If none of the above applies and I ask the GM to retroactively place it there, then it is up to the GM's judgement to both i) decide whether he or she will allow that as a possibility, and ii) decide on how to determine whether it is there or not, whether through just saying "Sure, why not?" Or a dice roll, or somesuch. What the "traditional approach" does not generally include is the player saying "The mace is there because I want it to be, because this is a collaborative game and I have co-creative agency, goshdarnit!" Again, nothing wrong with that, and it is certainly a valid way of playing, but it isn't the traditional approach, and is also what I feel like diminishes immersion.(And yes, I realize I'm being an instant of my own complaint by making your approach more extreme than it actually is).The crucial difference is--and I think what you take issue with as a general rule--the role of GM as final arbiter. Great, and more power to you. I'm not saying your approach is wrong or inherently less immersive, and it obviously works for you.Remember, this thread started with you asking a question which seemed to imply that certain traditional approaches to world-building were lacking in some way, or pointless, or about GM authority, or reducing player agency, etc etc. These sorts of conversations can be interesting if we are able to see how different styles can work, and even may be more efficient in producing certain results, but start getting edgy when pejorative implications start arising, or at least are being perceived. It does seem like you are in several ongoing conversations which have elements of such <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /><img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />-for-tatting, on both sides of the "aisle."So what do you think? Where to go from here? If we go back to the original question, what are you left wondering, asking, wanting to talk about?</blockquote>

Verification