Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 7351319" data-attributes="member: 6785785">I actually am only describing it that way because my understanding of your views is that is how you would see it. I don't necessarily allow player authorship of fictional elements through action declaration. I'm not necessarily against that in theory, and I may allow it in some ways (establishing a contact through some kind of Diplomacy or Gather Information check would be a good example). But it really depends on the action and goal in question. So it is a binary choice in your opinion.I disagree with that, and with the idea that thinking the opposite makes discussions or examples impossible. I think my game contains both elements, yet I could follow the D&D/Dungeon World comparison done by Manbearcat, and Innerdude's point just above is equally clear. I agree with him that when a player can add to the fictional world, they become more involved in the game. This god-awful map example again. Devoid of any sense of context or why it matters or anything else. A hastily sketched example that unsurprisingly does not hold up to scrutiny. Now, I know other folks have defended the GM denying the player the ability to author the map into existence. And that's fine. I may or may not agree. But without a more meaningful example, it's hard to say. The bribery issue is simpler....unless I had a compelling reason to have pre-determined all the guards in the location and their disposition toward bribery, then I would leave that up to the results of the player's roll. I'm all for that. I don't like to thwart players' ideas when it comes to solving their problems. But that map example....how can one say? If the map is important to the players.....let's say it holds the location of one PC's father's sword, the recovery of which is an important stated goal for that character....then I would imagine that the discovery of the map is some kind of goal. Allowing the player to simply produce the map in a kitchen is horrible from a story point of view, and I woudl not allow that at all. Agency be damned at that point, although I don't think any of my players would actually attempt such a thing, so no agency would actually be harmed in the making of this example. This is why I used the somewhat cheeky example of Boromir authoring the presence of Sauron at the Council of Rivendell. The player knows the goal, so the character wills it into being. It seems a horrible way to play, and I believe is the kind of play the Czege Principle points out as being unfun. In my game, such a specific goal for the players would not be sitting in some random kitchen. It would likely have a specified location. In this sense, I realize I am being very "GM driven", but I don't really see the reason to avoid this. I don't really think it actually robs players of agency, either, except in the sense that they cannot author the presence of the map wherever they may like. Which to me, is a pretty broad application of agency. I also don't allow players to kick me in the nethers....but I don't think anyone would say that's denying them agency. Maybe a few people, but not most. Now, if you're talking about a map that the player has suggested, that's different. Not something the GM has in mind beforehand, but an idea that occurs to the player and they run with it. So they find themselves in the gnoll warmaster's quarters, having killed him and secured the location. And one of the player says "I'd like to see if there are any maps that may show the areas the gnolls might be targeting?" In such a case, I'd likely be happy they suggested this and allow them to search, and have the result of the check reveal the presence or usefulness of the maps. In this sense, my game would be very "Player Driven" I believe. So it is a situational thing, depending on the needs of the game and the story. I don't know if granting players carte blanche to introduce elements into the fiction through action declaration is always a good idea. Or that it's agency in the sense that we typically ascribe to the kind desired in a game. Of course, principled use of such techniques can likely produce a great game experience...I wouldn't say it cannot. But generally, I don't think that having certain elements of the fiction being the GM's purview is a bad thing. I believe perhaps you missed my exchange with AbdulAlhazred some pages back where we talked about a skill check establishing a new player contact NPC. I do move from one to the other. Almost everything that is happening in my game is based on elements my players have introduced through character backstory and connections they've established in play. But there is also a story I've come up with that connects all their stories, and weaves in and out of them. The actual play tends to depend on what they want to do. I wait until they've narrowed in on an area of interest, and that's what we explore. I occasionally, but not very often, introduce events that may occur that demand their attention, but when I do so, these are usually drawn from player cues rather than invented whole cloth by me. So I do have "worldbuilding" elements as you describe them. Most of these don't come into play when it comes to action declaration and resolution, but are more macro and story related; e.g. Iggwilv has formed an alliance with Yug-Anark and Eclavdra, and what that may mean for the world (or words, really). I don't really tend to think of my game as player driven or GM driven....it contains elements of both. What it may lack when compared to Burning Wheel or even Dungeon World is mechanics that support a more player driven style of play. Instead it's all in how we've come to play and the expectations that we have now.</blockquote>

Verification