Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Wolfpack48" data-source="post: 9334338" data-attributes="member: 6872648">This post was illustrative to me. It seems some would find the concept of hidden fictional positioning anathema. It's a GM trump card (queue the GM Tyrancy) that cancels player agency. But I get your points below.I was trying to think of a model in fiction where what the player narratively asserts becomes the new reality. &quot;The safe must have the needed papers&quot; and the thought that springs to mind is that book The Secret where you will things into reality. And that seems to be where traditional and narrative focuses diverge. The narrative reality created by the player must be respected and cannot be countermanded by any &quot;objective&quot; reality (&quot;objective&quot; as defined by the GM's notes or an event in the published scenario or the setting's &quot;reality.&quot;).The narrative flow is constantly changing and evolving based on story inputs created by everyone at the table, but it becomes more like Joyce or Faulkner style stream-of-consciousness fiction, and the story might not have a traditional end unless everyone agrees on the way to wrap it up.Whereas a traditional flow is the more well-recognized story structure &quot;authored&quot; or at least framed by a singular GM, and everyone works to play within or expand that structure. It would have a defined beginning, middle and end, however, and possibly events that players don't control.I could see how someone who likes a particular style might be frustrated by the other style, and I could see some liking both.&nbsp; Some might not like the &quot;amorphous&quot; feel of a stream-of-consciousness session, and some might feel imposed on by the author's &quot;structure.&quot;One thing I would point out here is that my definition of a Tyrant GM would be one who is constantly and actively making moves to counter or nullify player agency to the point where the player feels absolutely powerless.Others' threshold might be much lower. To the point where any hidden fictional positioning, or GM authored/scenario event not initiated by a player is tyrannical.I guess everyone needs to decide where they stand on that spectrum and find players of like mind.I think it comes back to how everyone at the table wants to run things.&nbsp; If all agree that James Joyce is the way to go, then it's all good. But everyone must agree at the outset.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Wolfpack48, post: 9334338, member: 6872648"] This post was illustrative to me. It seems some would find the concept of hidden fictional positioning anathema. It's a GM trump card (queue the GM Tyrancy) that cancels player agency. But I get your points below. I was trying to think of a model in fiction where what the player narratively asserts becomes the new reality. "The safe must have the needed papers" and the thought that springs to mind is that book The Secret where you will things into reality. And that seems to be where traditional and narrative focuses diverge. The narrative reality created by the player must be respected and cannot be countermanded by any "objective" reality ("objective" as defined by the GM's notes or an event in the published scenario or the setting's "reality."). The narrative flow is constantly changing and evolving based on story inputs created by everyone at the table, but it becomes more like Joyce or Faulkner style stream-of-consciousness fiction, and the story might not have a traditional end unless everyone agrees on the way to wrap it up. Whereas a traditional flow is the more well-recognized story structure "authored" or at least framed by a singular GM, and everyone works to play within or expand that structure. It would have a defined beginning, middle and end, however, and possibly events that players don't control. I could see how someone who likes a particular style might be frustrated by the other style, and I could see some liking both. Some might not like the "amorphous" feel of a stream-of-consciousness session, and some might feel imposed on by the author's "structure." One thing I would point out here is that my definition of a Tyrant GM would be one who is constantly and actively making moves to counter or nullify player agency to the point where the player feels absolutely powerless. Others' threshold might be much lower. To the point where any hidden fictional positioning, or GM authored/scenario event not initiated by a player is tyrannical. I guess everyone needs to decide where they stand on that spectrum and find players of like mind. I think it comes back to how everyone at the table wants to run things. If all agree that James Joyce is the way to go, then it's all good. But everyone must agree at the outset. [/QUOTE]

Verification