Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6111393" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think we have pretty large agreement.  It was never my contention that the 'desert' should be framed as an action scene either.  My contention is that a scene framed as an action scene couldn't be reframed by the player as a transition scene without unanimous agreement, or without the IC resources to render the action trivial, or without being in a system that expressedly gave players authorial resources.   I'm skeptical even of the claim that Hussar was consciously reframing this as a transition scene in order to advance the narrative.  I think Hussar's motives and feelings at the time were probably complicated, and as I've said, knowing only as much as the scenario he was playing I'm sympathetic to what he wanted to do.  Even though I personally - for reasons grounded in the rules of the game - would have shot the 'Centipede' plan down, I would very much have not wanted to do so to the point of possibly rewriting his Binder powers on the spot to allow the plan at least in its broad outline (though not in its details) to work.   But I don't know what really happened, and it is as you say impossible to speculate.  Where me and Hussar would simply irreconciably butt heads is his insistance on being able to control the outcome of his propositions as a player.  And really that is the sole area.  We wouldn't but heads over delivering a story keyed off player interests.  I'm all for that.  I wouldn't be adverse to an episodic format that gets to conclusions fast if everyone at the table was fine with that.  And I firmly believe that outcomes should be generally predictable, at least in as much as the stakes are known, but only within the context of the actual resolution mechanics.  But I can't reconcile control giving control over how a scene is framed, or control over the setting other than agency derived by backstory authority, or control of the outcome or technique used to resolve a potentially complex series of events to the player with the goal of delivering an exciting dramatic story to the players.   As pemerton keeps reminding us in this thread with his links, as a general rule it is not exciting for the same person to introduce the obstacle and its resolution.  I know some systems do allow this - neither BW nor 4e are numbered among them - but those systems that do allow it have mechanics for regulating it.  D&D is not such a system.   I'm not adverse to cutting to the good stuff, but I'm not going to have a player dictate to me how events are going to transpire in the future because that renders my presence as a GM superfluous.I'm not sure that conflict really is best described in terms of system, techniques, or interests.  It seems to me that it transcends that, because Hussar in other situations appears to enjoy either being the DM or player in game systems that I don't really feel have built in support for shared authorial control.  I suspect in a GM it requires someone with a primary Recreation/Fellowship agenda of play, where as my GM agenda of play - what I like to get out of GMing as I play - is more Narrative/Exploration/Creativity.  Or in short the problem may be more personality than any high notions like system.  I just am not the sort to say, "Oh well, whatever, let's just get on with it shall we?"   To me asking me to change the cosmology of the world to fit your character concept is reasonable, but asking me to insert colorless 1st level warriors is an offense to the dignity of my setting.  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />  Why so serious?  Beats me, but if I had to guess its because the former lets me excercise my creativity while the later just does not.</blockquote>

Verification