Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7366427" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'll repeat: there is no world around the PC, except as that "world" is authored.That is not the claim that there is no world around the PCs. The claim is that there is no world except as it is authored.The PCs are in a bazaar. That's the world I authored, as part of framing a situation that spoke to one PCs goal to find a magic item that would help him against a balrog. That world is no less "real" than one that has an intersection in it, or a village being attacked by troglodytes.The peddler and angel feather aren't less "real" because they engage the dramatic needs of the PC.That's the point I'm making. You are not advocating for a more "real" world, or more player choice. You're advocating for more GM authorship and less player influence. That's your prerogative, but surely you can see why I say that the approach you advocate gives the player less control over the content of the shared fiction!But you don't increase player agency in respect of the shared fiction by giving the GM more authorship of it. Which is the point I've been making the whole time.One may prefer more GM agency, or more player agency. That's a matter of taste. But you can't increase player agency by increasing GM agency. That's a contradiction!There is nothing magical about GM-authored goals. There is no particular reason to suppose that they will be "more engaging".As far as "better choices" are concerned, better in what sense? More exciting? See the previous paragraph. More efficient? More tactically sound? Now you're talking about a completely different approach to play from what I'm interested in.As far as "knowledge of the world" - backstory known only to the GM doesn't make anyone's play experience richer. Here are some <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?309950-Actual-play-my-first-quot-social-only-quot-session" target="_blank">actual</a> <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?340383-PCs-kill-Ometh-leading-to-open-season-on-the-Raven-Queen-s-name" target="_blank">play</a> <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?484945-Session-report-the-Mausoleum-of-the-Raven-Queen" target="_blank">reports</a> that illustrate backstory emerging in the course of play.As far as "trivialities" are concerned, there is generally nothing trivial about the events affecting the PCs in a player-driven RPG. The point can be generalised - if the stuff the PCs are involved in is always per se trivial, then following the GM's leads can make no difference. Conversely, if stuff that the PCs are involved in is sometimes not trivial, then what makes you think that any of the episodes of play I've described involves trivial stuff?New information came to light - namely, the angel feather is cursed. This led the player to change goals for his PC - he reached out to a leading figure in his sorcerous cabal.Later on, new information came to light - namely, his brother was killed in front of him. Hence the PC changed goals (there no longer being any hope of saving his brother).What you say isn't controversial. But there's no connection between what you say, and the GM authoring vast swathes of fiction and revealing it to the players.No. This is ridiculous.Your players are wondering what to do about an intersection which you, the GM, have decided to tell them about.My players are wondering what to do at the reliquary which I, as GM, have decided to tell them about.My players have as many choices as yours. They have not lost any choices.You are being misled, I think, by ignoring the fact that (i) it is all just fiction, and (ii) we are all mortal. I'm not going to run out of stuff before I die. The fact that I'm taking my stuff from player cues doesn't affect that.The agency of choice within the fiction = choosing to declare actions that trigger the GM to say stuff. That is not exercising agency over the content of the shared fiction.</blockquote>

Verification