Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7336631" data-attributes="member: 42582">I don't think so. At least as I understand it, the players' action declarations affected the framing. Eg those action declarations made it the case (say) that this Shade NPC was sympathetic rather than hostile to them, which makes it impossible for the GM to (say) narrate that everyone among the Shades turns on them.(That's a simplified example, obviously, just to try and convey what I mean.)The last sentence here is helping me reach the description I gave just above: the GM's narration was constrained by elements of the framing that had changed, or been established, by action resolution.When I talk about the GM carrying the weight at that final point, I think I'm talking about the same thing as your &quot;how things ultimately played out.&quot; A difference between us is that I would generally look to the players for a desire as to how things ultimately play out, and have that be a direct consequence of the action resolution (which doesn't meant it has to be simple - the action resolution might unfold over mutliple checks, with both mechanical and fiction-to-fiction iteration, etc).My tentative prediction was that your game might have come under pressure to let the players exercise more control (not narrative fiat control, but settling-it-through-action-declaration control) up through those final/ultimate elements as it went along: as the players got more invested, and formed more concrete ideas about how they wanted to see things end up, and so made a greater effort to frame and push their action declarations in those definite directions (rather than, say - and to use another toy example - just trying to make the negotiator friendly to them, but leaving it to the GM to work out exactly what &quot;being friendly&quot; yields in concrete terms).Did your game experience any such trajectory or pressure?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7336631, member: 42582"] I don't think so. At least as I understand it, the players' action declarations affected the framing. Eg those action declarations made it the case (say) that this Shade NPC was sympathetic rather than hostile to them, which makes it impossible for the GM to (say) narrate that [I]everyone[/I] among the Shades turns on them. (That's a simplified example, obviously, just to try and convey what I mean.) The last sentence here is helping me reach the description I gave just above: the GM's narration was constrained by elements of the framing that had changed, or been established, by action resolution. When I talk about the GM carrying the weight at that final point, I think I'm talking about the same thing as your "how things ultimately played out." A difference between us is that I would generally look to the players for a desire as to how things ultimately play out, and have that be a direct consequence of the action resolution (which doesn't meant it has to be simple - the action resolution might unfold over mutliple checks, with both mechanical and fiction-to-fiction iteration, etc). My tentative prediction was that your game might have come under pressure to let the players exercise more control (not narrative fiat control, but settling-it-through-action-declaration control) up through those final/ultimate elements as it went along: as the players got more invested, and formed more concrete ideas about how they wanted to see things end up, and so made a greater effort to frame and push their action declarations in those definite directions (rather than, say - and to use another toy example - just trying to make the negotiator friendly to them, but leaving it to the GM to work out exactly what "being friendly" yields in concrete terms). Did your game experience any such trajectory or pressure? [/QUOTE]

Verification