Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7333065" data-attributes="member: 42582">OK. Finding out, here, means getting the GM to tell the player something from his/her notes (either literally, or notionally - s/he makes something up as if it were in his/her notes).I'm puzzled as to what is controversial in this description of what you have said.I think it's inherent. Which is not to say it's bad.Look at MarkB's example. It's inherent in that way of handling the bribery scenario that it is the GM's idea about the presence or absence of a bribeable NPC is favoured in establishing the shared fiction. Because the way the shared fiction is established is by the GM creating it; and the player, in play, learns what it is that the GM has created.What's the true action declaration here? Is it &quot;I try to find a bribeable NPC?&quot; (Which might be conveyed by all sorts of actual words at the table.) In that case, it has failed - it's the same as being in the study and failing to find the map.Is it &quot;I want to learn what the state of the fiction is vis-a-vis birbeable NPCs&quot;? In that case the action has been completed, but I reiterate - how is it unfair or disparaging to say that the whole point of this action delcaration is to get the GM to tell the player some stuff from his/her notes?Ditto. Picking up leads and connections that grant me a better understanding, here, literally means having the GM convey to me more stuff about what's in her (actual or notional) notes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7333065, member: 42582"] OK. [I]Finding out[/I], here, means getting the GM to tell the player something from his/her notes (either literally, or notionally - s/he makes something up as if it were in his/her notes). I'm puzzled as to what is controversial in this description of what you have said. I think it's inherent. Which is not to say it's bad. Look at MarkB's example. It's inherent in that way of handling the bribery scenario that it is the GM's idea about the presence or absence of a bribeable NPC is favoured in establishing the shared fiction. Because the way the shared fiction is established is by the GM creating it; and the player, in play, learns what it is that the GM has created. What's the true action declaration here? Is it "I try to find a bribeable NPC?" (Which might be conveyed by all sorts of actual words at the table.) In that case, it has failed - it's the same as being in the study and failing to find the map. Is it "I want to learn what the state of the fiction is vis-a-vis birbeable NPCs"? In that case the action has been completed, but I reiterate - how is it unfair or disparaging to say that the whole point of this action delcaration is to get the GM to tell the player some stuff from his/her notes? Ditto. [I]Picking up leads and connections that grant me a better understanding[/I], here, literally means [I]having the GM convey to me more stuff about what's in her (actual or notional) notes[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification