Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8348184" data-attributes="member: 16814">The thing that strikes me about this is that this play is true in all RPGs, the only difference is between games that allow actions to resolve this for everyone, and games where one person already knows the answer because they author it and the game allows actions to get this person to reveal the details.&nbsp; In both, the fiction is still authored by a player at the table, so a player authoring fiction that actions reveal seems like it's a tad misplaced as a general argument.Instead, this is more about who has authorities.&nbsp; In games where all of the authorities are vested in the GM, then the GM has say, and the players are taking actions to prompt the GM to reveal more about what they have authored -- either in prep or in the moment.&nbsp; Even if the GM invites player contributions, the authority rests with the GM, as they are the only ones at the table that can say no, and their word is the last on all matters (including, quite often, what an allowable action declaration is -- see Metagaming).&nbsp; This is contrasted by a game that puts some authority with the players -- games like Fiasco put all authority with the players, as there isn't even a GM role!&nbsp; And, then, there are systems that share some authorities, but do so through the use of mechanics.&nbsp; In all of these, though, fiction is authored by a player and discovered through action declarations.&nbsp; Method matters, but I don't think your formulation of the differences gets to the root of the issue.&nbsp; And, to me, that root is &quot;how active, as a non-GM player, do you wish to be in forming the story?&quot;&nbsp; There's no right answer to this -- it's perfectly valid to say &quot;almost not at all&quot; because you trust the GM to deliver a fun and engaging story that you don't have to be active to generate -- just do your job as a player to prompt the next bits from the GM.&nbsp; It could be &quot;some,&quot; in which case you can have a 'sandbox' where the GM has a lot of fiction but you get a say in how you chart a path through it.&nbsp; It could be &quot;lots&quot; in which case a system mediated game might fit the bill, like PbtA.&nbsp; It could be &quot;all of it&quot; in which case a number of GM-less games are out there, like Fiasco, that are entirely player driven with a light system touch.&nbsp; There's places in-between these as well.&nbsp; But, overall, I disagree that it's because the player 'authors' things -- this is true in every game, as the GM is still a player.&nbsp; It's more 'I don't like having the authority and duty to author things.'&nbsp; Which is entirely valid as a requirement for an entertainment hobby -- you don't have to be active to enjoy the game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8348184, member: 16814"] The thing that strikes me about this is that this play is true in all RPGs, the only difference is between games that allow actions to resolve this for everyone, and games where one person already knows the answer because they author it and the game allows actions to get this person to reveal the details. In both, the fiction is still authored by a player at the table, so a player authoring fiction that actions reveal seems like it's a tad misplaced as a general argument. Instead, this is more about who has authorities. In games where all of the authorities are vested in the GM, then the GM has say, and the players are taking actions to prompt the GM to reveal more about what they have authored -- either in prep or in the moment. Even if the GM invites player contributions, the authority rests with the GM, as they are the only ones at the table that can say no, and their word is the last on all matters (including, quite often, what an allowable action declaration is -- see Metagaming). This is contrasted by a game that puts some authority with the players -- games like Fiasco put all authority with the players, as there isn't even a GM role! And, then, there are systems that share some authorities, but do so through the use of mechanics. In all of these, though, fiction is authored by a player and discovered through action declarations. Method matters, but I don't think your formulation of the differences gets to the root of the issue. And, to me, that root is "how active, as a non-GM player, do you wish to be in forming the story?" There's no right answer to this -- it's perfectly valid to say "almost not at all" because you trust the GM to deliver a fun and engaging story that you don't have to be active to generate -- just do your job as a player to prompt the next bits from the GM. It could be "some," in which case you can have a 'sandbox' where the GM has a lot of fiction but you get a say in how you chart a path through it. It could be "lots" in which case a system mediated game might fit the bill, like PbtA. It could be "all of it" in which case a number of GM-less games are out there, like Fiasco, that are entirely player driven with a light system touch. There's places in-between these as well. But, overall, I disagree that it's because the player 'authors' things -- this is true in every game, as the GM is still a player. It's more 'I don't like having the authority and duty to author things.' Which is entirely valid as a requirement for an entertainment hobby -- you don't have to be active to enjoy the game. [/QUOTE]

Verification