Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7346744" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, I'm going to retreat slightly from my statement that there's NOTHING different between [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=6682826]CH[/MENTION]aochau in their positions.Pemerton doesn't have players introducing fiction de-novo. They have to play for it, whereas I believe chaochau allows for (at least in some games) players to introduce something, like the dragon example. So I BELIEVE Pemerton would always have the GM suggest the dragon in response to a player's expression of need for money, but then he might also introduce other options of various levels of risk (this was also discussed at some point and seemed quite reasonable). Now, maybe there's daylight here too between the two of them in terms of what techniques they think are acceptable, chaochau already said that he's fine with letting the PLAYER suggest the dragon because actually engaging in the challenge is going to be handled by the GM and there's a lot of intervening steps building up to some hypothetical dragon fight (where presumably the GM can exert a lot of control over exactly what the content of that fight entails, insuring the player isn't simply authoring his own challenge). Pemerton expressed a distaste for this procedure, claiming to be 'much more conservative' IIRC. He did say he agreed though that it was an example of the general style of play, just that he wouldn't do it exactly the same way.I'm saying Pemerton didn't agree that player agency is 'buried', and I don't think I do either. However there are details we weren't provided with in this scenario that can materially change my perceptions, potentially. For example Pemerton never stated that OTHER options weren't presented, he was entirely silent on that. Nor did he provide all significant details of the Vecna option. Was it presented as a possibility that the character had to pursue? Was it dropped on him as a take this or face the consequences (IE Vecna showed up and said "join me or perish!")? I don't know! The character might have very well had a 'third way' option (IE ignore Vecna and just go about his business and let Rel Astra take care of itself, though I think this might be seen as an abnegation of the character itself in this case). Were I that player I might well work to find some middle way, like betraying Vecna or something like that. I think these all fall under my rubrik of 'hoist himself off the horns of the dilemma' and they would all presumably entail great risks! Anyway, I think this sort of thing is the ESSENCE of great play! As a player how much more delicious can it be then to portray the actions of my character in a profound situation of moral danger! Nothing can allow strong characterization as well as this! Others talk about exploring the fantasy world, but this is a whole dimension of it, the personalities of its inhabitants, particularly of the PC I'm playing.  Taken on its face, the example of 'the map cannot be found in the study because its hidden in some other non-obvious place.' doesn't leap out as being an example of player agency. The GM is simply describing some element of the setting established unilaterally. That MIGHT NOT be an issue, but in the cases where it isn't, at least in my own play, the game wouldn't present the check as 'look in the study for the map'. Lets say there's time pressure, then a check in an SC dealing with resolving the conflict might be something like "Make a check to see if you can quickly find the map in the <NPC>'s abode." A failure wastes time and might be narrated as "you failed to look in the kitchen!" (if the map is a blocker and thus is found regardless) or "you find no map!" otherwise. So, given my style of play, as presented the map scenario doesn't contain any player agency. In fact in my own game system it could only exist in that form as an 'interlude' a segment of descriptive play in which nothing is being staked (but which might act as a transition and scene setting device for later challenges). Thus not finding the map is perfectly OK, but no check would ever be made. The map simply isn't important and agency isn't addressed by it.</blockquote>

Verification