Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 7351995" data-attributes="member: 6698278">Well we could debate this as it relates to God but that would be a sidetrack <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />.   I do feel the GM is tasked with creating this world to the best of their ability.  In a properly created world, there are three possibilities.  The GM has specifically authored that a rock is present or not, the GM has authored that the area could have rocks but it's not certain so their is some chance.  No matter the answer if the GM has created a world and actually knows the location of rocks I'm fine with it.  If he doesn't then the second option comes into play.  Perhaps a building having a window is a better example.  If I detailed out the building in advance then I tell the player what is seen.  If not then I'd have to dice for the chance that side of the building had a window.  Either way, the player should be unaware of how that fact is known.  The player character just gets told continuously the state of affairs of the world as the player interacts.  Perhaps allow the PC to roll is where things go wrong.  I don't have the PC's rolling for what they see.  I roll it secretly and sometimes I roll even when I don't need to roll.  I want my player characters to feel as if every single solitary atom of this imaginary world already exists.  Logically we know that is not possible.  Still a fair GM will do a lot of detail in the gaming area and less detail about far away places but enough.  The GM will also know enough about the world in general to make good estimations on things he doesn't know for certain.  Wandering monster tables for example are an example.  No I the GM do not know at any second if a monster will be wandering through this area but I do know they are through here about 10% of the time or whatever.I think the mistake you are making is calling it agency.  Your concern is likely valid for a particular playstyle.  I'm not questioning that.   If though as a player, you can ask what you see and then affect what you see in meaningful ways you have agency.  So it might be an argument about semantics.  Now I will agree with you (I think) on one thing.  If a GM just says Yes or No without prior design and without any recourse to a die roll based on some probability then I think that is not good.  If though the GM has designed a building and one side has no windows, then answering "You see no windows" is not taking any agency away from players.  It's a mere conveying of facts about the actual state of the imaginary world.  Just like if I said to you "My house has no windows on the north side"The GM will roll if the state of something is not certain.  This is a concession to the fact GM's can't establish the location of every rock.  In a perfect world, at least to me, the GM could do that.  We know that is not possible.  So instead we establish what we perceive are the important things about an area, and we establish reasonable probabilities for anything not thought of.When it comes to NPC's which are a GM's greatest challenge, I think you set probabilities based upon various factors.  Even so I am sure there are cases where practically that probability is zero.  I do think it is worth a GM's efforts to learn about his NPCs but again there will always be the "red shirts" of the game who perhaps you only know a little.  In those cases of course you roll.  Again, there are very few NPC situations where I wouldn't roll.  I think agency again is the wrong word usage here.  I think I agree with you though that GMs who just arbitrarily decide everything based on whim is not my idea of a good GM.  I do though think a GM who builds his world and carefully develops his NPCs etc.... will not have to resort to a roll in every case.  This is why in "dungeons" I develop my NPCs and how they will react and their plans when attacked.  I determine those plans based on the intelligence score.  Then when the PCs enter the dungeon and develop their own plans I follow my original plan and I'm unaffected by what the PC's do (thus avoiding bias).  That doesn't mean I never dice for anything.  I do all the time.  I roll a morale check often off camera for whether the residents will stay and fight or run away.  That roll is based on how formidable the PCs seem and how difficult the fight has been on the bad guys.   My monsters don't stupidly die.  They act according to their intelligence.  As a GM, I feel my job is to present a "realistic" world given it's a fantasy setting.  I want my NPCs to act in believable ways.  Success to me is when my players hate one NPC and love another and I'm playing both as GM.  It takes real effort and commitment to be a good GM.  You won't lack for a group though if you make the commitment. (And I'm not saying that you are or aren't a good GM.  That last statement was just in general.)</blockquote>

Verification