Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 7327236" data-attributes="member: 59082">Pemerton, there is just too much to reply to and a lot of it getting to be quite redundant, so I'll try to tease out some points...I keep wanting to simmer this down but it seems to be rather difficult!You are correct: I misspoke. I meant to say the PC has agency, in that the player is acting through and as the character and cannot act within the narrative without the character as "avatar."Sorry, pemerton, the noise just outweighs the signal here. I fear that your dissertation is a case in which more is less. What exactly are you trying to say? I can't determine how what you are saying is unique to indie-style play, or opposed to traditional style - except the more glaringly extreme version of it that you continue to prop up, which doesn't represent the vast majority of traditional campaigns I've played in. Again, it is a spectrum. I'm going to keep hammering that home, because you seem to want to make this black and white.I would say the GM better have a very good reason for doing so.And who does? Only abusive, power-mongering GMs. Sure, they exist, but it isn't intrinsic to traditional play. I have played with such GMs, but not in a long time - and they were always in their early 20s or younger. I mean, I just don't get the "GM vs. Players" mentality. I don't see RPGs as a competitive sport, at least not D&D. But it also just seems silly, considering that the GM can always win if he or she really wants to. As a GM, the only way I "win" is if everyone at the table has a good time. Isn't that the bottom line?Ahh, so I was right about the "RPG libertarianism"...or shall we say classical liberalism? This is the heart of your view, I think, which is a political one.Maybe in the end you simply take your RPGing more seriously than I do. For me it is not a political matter, it is about having fun. Now don't get me wrong: there are other contexts in life in which I am more stringent to certain ideological principles. But not in RPGs, and I'm guessing this is because you are more serious and dedicated to your gaming than I am. I'm not saying that as a judgement on either of us, but I do think it matters in terms of understanding how we are coming at this discussion from different perspectives, and perhaps "granularity of concern." But this is simply not true. As you yourself said, the choice could be 1, 2, 3, or 4...why is it now only 1 or 2? What changed?I think the GM decides, as adjudicator, which method best applies given the situation and campaign assumptions. Where you and I disagree is on how much power the GM should have to decide which way to resolve an action; you seem to think it necessary for there to be external limits and rules put on the GM, whereas I don't. Actually, in this regard, I am probably far more laissez-faire than you...I say, let the market decide! Meaning, if the GM abuses his or her power, the players can leave. Why do I feel this way? Because if a GM is such a person that needs external limits in order not to abuse power, then that is the type of person I don't really want to game with to begin with! Just as if I'm a GM and my players insist that I have external limitations put on me as the GM, there's a level of mistrust that I will find off-putting. So for me there's a "sacred agreement" of trust between GM and players. I'm not sure I want to play in a game where that isn't there.Again, who is talking about "all outcomes by fiat" or "treating player action declarations merely as suggestions?" Maybe someone else, but not I.Agreed! Again, you're reducing a spectrum to a single caricatured strawman. This is why I don't find "indie" vs. "traditional" to be all that useful (even though I'm guilty of using it), or at least only worthwhile as a study in abstract contrasts. It is a spectrum, with infinite variation between. The reason I don't think you see this is that you seem to be somewhat of a purist: there is a clear line that you don't cross, but the problem is that anything on the other side is muddled and therefore "dirty," and all in the same category because it doesn't adhere to indie puritanism. You seem to want everything spelled out before hand, everything defined. Again, I mix this sort of thing in. If this is really the case, as a GM I'm somewhere between you and Lanefan (although I'm not convinced that Lanefan or many on these boards are as extreme as you describe...but I could be wrong).Yes, and that's the framework upon which every single campaign will vary from on a spectrum, from "by the book" to "how the heck did we get here?" I've always seen modules as basic themes that can--but don't have to be--improvised from. That's the beauty of them, of pre-published settings, of anything published: You can do whatever you want with them. As the GM, you can make them your own.</blockquote>

Verification