Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 7408651" data-attributes="member: 6698278">A Pemerton Quote:My own view - which is not an expression of a semantic opinion, but an expression of a preference for play - is 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.Sorry, I copied this and didn't have the original post.&nbsp; This post is perhaps the clear demarcation between our styles.&nbsp; I think it is succinct enough.&nbsp; If the world exists, then the DM is merely revealing that the players lack of knowledge has prevented the declared action from happening.&nbsp; If the world does not exist, then of course the DM is deciding because the world has not yet been created.&nbsp; And by existence, I mean is detailed.&nbsp;&nbsp; The difference Permerton is that my worlds really do have a lot detailed.&nbsp; Stuff the players could not possibly know on day one.&nbsp; Finding out those truths is the very purpose of the game to my players.&nbsp; If I told them I would just make it up as I go, with perhaps a few die rolls for guidance, they'd all walk out.&nbsp; We don't even need a DM for that they'd say.&nbsp; We can roll ourselves if that is all you provide.Now in those cases where something is not detailed, out approach is exactly the same.&nbsp; We dice for it based upon the probability of it being true.&nbsp; Perhaps you want to use some universal chance whereas the probability in my campaign will be the actually probability based on knowledge of the world.So if you feel the DM &quot;revealing&quot; the world is creating it for you then sure why not create some of it yourself.&nbsp; If the world to the best of the DM's ability is created already and well designed and consistent and that is what you want from your DM then no you don't feel like the DM &quot;revealing&quot; the world is creating it for you.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 7408651, member: 6698278"] A Pemerton Quote: My own view - which is not an expression of a semantic opinion, but an expression of a preference for play - is 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. Sorry, I copied this and didn't have the original post. This post is perhaps the clear demarcation between our styles. I think it is succinct enough. If the world exists, then the DM is merely revealing that the players lack of knowledge has prevented the declared action from happening. If the world does not exist, then of course the DM is deciding because the world has not yet been created. And by existence, I mean is detailed. The difference Permerton is that my worlds really do have a lot detailed. Stuff the players could not possibly know on day one. Finding out those truths is the very purpose of the game to my players. If I told them I would just make it up as I go, with perhaps a few die rolls for guidance, they'd all walk out. We don't even need a DM for that they'd say. We can roll ourselves if that is all you provide. Now in those cases where something is not detailed, out approach is exactly the same. We dice for it based upon the probability of it being true. Perhaps you want to use some universal chance whereas the probability in my campaign will be the actually probability based on knowledge of the world. So if you feel the DM "revealing" the world is creating it for you then sure why not create some of it yourself. If the world to the best of the DM's ability is created already and well designed and consistent and that is what you want from your DM then no you don't feel like the DM "revealing" the world is creating it for you. [/QUOTE]

Verification