NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6111067" data-attributes="member: 4937">So, for the example of the Windy Ledge, did Luke ask, "Guys, what's at stake here?"   Was it implied that the players created the "Windy Ledge" challenge, the DM asked them what the stakes where, and then they played it out?  Because that is a valid way to play a game, but it's not the impression I'm getting from the discussion.  Again, did the players invent the 'Windy Ledge' scene?  Did the players set the stakes of being suffering loss or forgoing resources?  If the answer is 'no, then the players certainly didn't decide.  Not only is it false that 'the players decide', as all the examples show clearly, but this entire assumption is false.   Moreover, it is my position that this heavy handed scene frame is more dictatorial than what I'm suggesting, and not less, and that it decreases the authority of the players rather than increases it.If the GM is responcible for the scene framing, and for introducing the challenges, then the GM has an opinion.  Is the resolution to this problem, the player says, "I don't like this scene, may I have another?"   That's possible, but I'll not that that treads into the sort of simplistic conch passing that pemerton keeps warning us against.Funny how you think I'm the one that doesn't understand the stakes here.There is so much wrong with this I don't know where to begin.   I know what Beliefs are supposed to do.   But the more examples I'm seeing of beliefs in play the less I believe they accomplish that.  And again, I want to point out that in Luke's own discusion of whether the Windy Ledge was important, he didn't mention Beliefs at all.  Moreover, if the GM can decide that the Windy Ledge is important, then indeed he does get 'an opinion' as to whether a scene matters to the player's beliefs.  Starting from a false premise, over and over, is the reason you struggle to frame any sort of meaningful responce to my critique.  Why don't you start from the assumption that I'm not a 'dictatorial' capracious cruel tyrant that desires only to abuse and crush my players.  Until you break out of that paradigm you're going to be stuck writing these hollow 'theoretical' critiques of a game you don't understand. Apologies if that comes across as blunt.</blockquote>

Verification