Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7406879" data-attributes="member: 42582">Yes. I'm an academic philospher. I don't need Google to tell me what philosophers mean by agency.This is all irrelevant to my point that I am using the same word as you. I am not &quot;redefining&quot; anything. Just like the argument between (say) Kantians and Humeans about what agency consists in is not an argument about definitions. It's an argument about actual real stuff.In the context of this thread, to repeat, I assert that if a player's declared action cannot succeed, because of an unrevealed decision by the GM about the setting/backstory, then the player does not have control over his/her PC's actions. The GM has, on that occasion of play, exercised control. You thing I'm wrong. Fine. But I'm not wrong about the meaning of any words.I think the non-semantic subject matter of this discusssion comes through clearly in the following post . . .Yes, in a sense. If the check succeeds, then the player's goal is realised - so the player has a chance of having control. But the player - as a general rule - cannot guarantee the success of a check. (Some systems have exceptions to this. In 4e many rituals don't require checks, just like most spell casting in other D&amp;D editions; but they are rationed in various ways.)I think we have a different view of that. I regard looking for beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet as an invalid action declation. It's in the same category as &quot;I flap my arms and take off&quot;. (Which is not in the same category as &quot;Being deluded, I flap my arms believing I might take off.&quot;)The significance of the distinction, for me, is that the invalidity of the hunt for beam weapons in the duke's toilet is established via a metagame discussion. It doesn't get to the stage of actually activiating the action resolution procedure.For me, the issue isn't whether or not my PC can (per impossible) tell how his/her story came to be established, but rather how, at the table, playing the game, some state of fictional affairs comes to be established.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7406879, member: 42582"] Yes. I'm an academic philospher. I don't need Google to tell me what philosophers mean by agency. This is all irrelevant to my point that [I]I am using the same word as you[/I]. I am not "redefining" anything. Just like the argument between (say) Kantians and Humeans about what [I]agency[/I] consists in is not an argument about definitions. It's an argument about [I]actual real stuff[/I]. In the context of this thread, to repeat, I assert that if a player's declared action cannot succeed, because of an unrevealed decision by the GM about the setting/backstory, then the player does not have control over his/her PC's actions. The GM has, on that occasion of play, exercised control. You thing I'm wrong. Fine. But I'm not wrong about the meaning of any words. I think the non-semantic subject matter of this discusssion comes through clearly in the following post . . . Yes, in a sense. If the check succeeds, then the player's goal is realised - so the player has a chance of having control. But the player - as a general rule - cannot guarantee the success of a check. (Some systems have exceptions to this. In 4e many rituals don't require checks, just like most spell casting in other D&D editions; but they are rationed in various ways.) I think we have a different view of that. I regard looking for beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet as an invalid action declation. It's in the same category as "I flap my arms and take off". (Which is [I]not [/I]in the same category as "Being deluded, I flap my arms believing I might take off.") The significance of the distinction, for me, is that the invalidity of the hunt for beam weapons in the duke's toilet is established via a metagame discussion. It doesn't get to the stage of actually activiating the action resolution procedure. For me, the issue isn't whether or not my PC can (per impossible) tell how his/her story came to be established, but rather how, at the table, playing the game, some state of fictional affairs comes to be established. [/QUOTE]

Verification