there are some who just do it strictly to exploit the rules in some way shape or form and will brook absolutely no other interpretation of anything that interferes with their PC. You ask them about their PC backstory and they say "Far Traveler so I can get Perception since its great for my PC."
To me, that doesn't look like
exploiting the rules. Why would a player choose a background that gives abilities they
don't want?
And how is it "powergaming" to choose proficiency in Perception? What skill choices
aren't powergaming?
Every power gamer I know who played old module A4 loved it and it changed their style. In that module, you start with no equipment and little clothes and nothing else and must get out of the prison before a Volcano explodes and kills you. Its strictly good gameplay and imagination to not die. Look it up and read the module, you might like it.
A4 is an interesting idea in the context of a game that emphasises PC equipment load outs and spell load outs as the main suites of player resources. So it was interesting in the context of classic D&D.
But there are a lot of approaches to RPGing in which the main action of play is not about managing those sorts of resources, and in which setting up a situation which is all about turning stalactites into makeshift spears is just tedious rather than fun play.
I totally agree that this conversation is how the game actually works in practice.
My point has never been that it's 100% player or DM when talking about how the game actually occurs at real tables. My point is about who comes up with the PC's fluff, player or DM. It's the player. The DM doesn't create it, the player does.
Let me put it this way: at the start of the campaign the DM says words to the effect of, "Here's my campaign/world; what do you think?" Sure, the player might have some suggestions about tweaking stuff, but it's the DM's creation. What does not happen is that the player creates the world/campaign!
What happens after the DM presents the world/campaign is that the players create a PC to play in that campaign/world. So they cannot player cyberware in a world without cyberware.
Then the player presents their PC, crunch and fluff, to the DM. The player says words to the effect of, "Here's my PC; what do you think?" Sure, the DM might have some suggestions about things like personality, events in the backstory, whatever. The DM might also say no to some things, and tell the player why they object to that thing, so that they can tweak it.
<snip>
The player controls their own PC, The DM controls the everything else!
Seeing as the thread seems to have moved to a point where posters are expressing their views about what makes for good RPGing, I'll express mine.
I think that, while you may be right about the default way to approach RPGing, I think it tends to make for mediocre RPG experiences, and is the source of a lot of the conflict that I seem to read about on these boards between players and their referees.
Every decision a player makes about his/her PC - both in backstory, and in play - has implications for the wider gameworld. Eg if a player makes decisions about his/her PC's parentage, that is already determining that reproduction in the gameworld - both biological and social aspects - proceeds in ways similar to the real world. If a player declares as an action "I look for a secret door" that forces the GM to confront the question of the forms that architecture takes in the gameworld.
So if we start from a premise that the GM controls "everything else", we're setting ourselves on a direct course for conflict, railroading, "player entitlement", etc.
Similarly, if the GM is never allowed to tell a player how his/her PC feels
unless a NPC uses a spell, huge swathes of fiction are precluded. When Frodo feels weary in Morder, that's not because Sauron cast an Emotion spell on him. When Lancelot feels passion for Guinevere, or - in the movie version - when Aragorn feels shame before Arwen about his human heritage - those aren't magical effects.
And it's hardly a feature of new-fangled systems that they allow for non-magical emotional consequences to occur to PCs. In Classic Traveller (1977) PCs are subject to morale checks. In the early 90s, when we player Rolemaster, either I as GM or the players for their PCs would call for rolls on the Depression critical table (RMC III) when a PC experienced some sort of trauma like the death of a loved one.
As I posted upthread, the heart of RPGing is collectively establishing a shared fiction, with the players contributing by declaring moves for and about their PCs. If everyone agrees with a proposal as to how the fiction changes ("I walk across the room and open the door") then lo-and-behold!, that's now true in the shared fiction. If there is some sort of contention, then the rules of the game tell us how to sort it out. If those rules give unilateral power to the GM, then it's not a game that I want to play, but let's be upfront about that and not pretend that the players also have some sacrosacnt sphere of power. But if the rules don't just say "GM fiat", then I can't see any way in which they're going to preserve some sort of "players control PCs, GM controls the world" demarcation.
