Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Nagol" data-source="post: 7345607" data-attributes="member: 23935">I'm, not going to quibble about using the word 'to' instead of the word 'in'.&nbsp; One phrase is common; the other may be more correct from a particular point of view, but it is not common.&nbsp; The common phrase is unambiguous in meaning so I'll keep using it.I suspect the reason 'in' is used is because the player is playing a role and is attempting to affect that character's world though that character's action.&nbsp; A player would attempt to do something 'to' the fiction when acting outside that role such as through a FATE declaration.Regardless, until the player's proposal for action is accepted, nothing is authored.&nbsp; The player makes a suggestion, it is vetted to account for table expectation, rules adherence, and fictional acceptability.&nbsp; A fortune mechanic may be called for and used as part of the adjudication if the suggestion is acceptable.&nbsp; Then and only then will the table see the fiction changed -- typically through GM narration.Some of the failure points are player or table issues. Others are not.&nbsp; If the player of Sir Bargle announces he is attacking and the GM informs the player he can't because the proposed victim is running a previously unknown Sanctuary spell then that's reflective of fictional positioning.&nbsp; If the GM announces Sir Bargle will make no attack because he is now held by a cleric with a readied action, that's a result of fictional positioning.&nbsp; If the player is informed Sir Bargle has been dominated since morning tea and may not take offensive action that is entirely fictional positioning.&nbsp; If the player is informed he can't attack because Sir Bargle is merely a figment in another PC's dream, that's entirely from fictional positioning.Ultimately, players do not get to author directly into games -- even player-facing ones.&nbsp; The GM, or table if there is no GM, must accept the player's suggestion before the fiction is updated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Nagol, post: 7345607, member: 23935"] I'm, not going to quibble about using the word 'to' instead of the word 'in'. One phrase is common; the other may be more correct from a particular point of view, but it is not common. The common phrase is unambiguous in meaning so I'll keep using it. I suspect the reason 'in' is used is because the player is playing a role and is attempting to affect that character's world though that character's action. A player would attempt to do something 'to' the fiction when acting outside that role such as through a FATE declaration. Regardless, until the player's proposal for action is accepted, nothing is authored. The player makes a suggestion, it is vetted to account for table expectation, rules adherence, and fictional acceptability. A fortune mechanic may be called for and used as part of the adjudication if the suggestion is acceptable. Then and only then will the table see the fiction changed -- typically through GM narration. Some of the failure points are player or table issues. Others are not. If the player of Sir Bargle announces he is attacking and the GM informs the player he can't because the proposed victim is running a previously unknown [I]Sanctuary[/I] spell then that's reflective of fictional positioning. If the GM announces Sir Bargle will make no attack because he is now held by a cleric with a readied action, that's a result of fictional positioning. If the player is informed Sir Bargle has been dominated since morning tea and may not take offensive action that is entirely fictional positioning. If the player is informed he can't attack because Sir Bargle is merely a figment in another PC's dream, that's entirely from fictional positioning. Ultimately, players do not get to author directly into games -- even player-facing ones. The GM, or table if there is no GM, must accept the player's suggestion before the fiction is updated. [/QUOTE]

Verification