GM fiat - an illustration

[hawkeyefan]

The notion that a Robin Hood-type background is a trap option - if it were true - would be a sad indictment of a relatively conventional mediaeval FRPG.

It seems obvious, though, that the background can work perfectly feasibly exactly as written, and that it is only and exactly the sort of GM behind-the scenes decision-making described by @Manbearcat that undercuts its utility.

I think it takes one of three things.

Not realizing that overriding the ability has rendered a player decision moot, especially one that, outside of spells, grants the player a shred of authority over what happens in the game world. I think this is likely the most common reason.

Anger and or frustration at having to cede authority to anything but magic. That any rule in the game would simply just work without the GM's approval without the lampshade of "but it's magic" is simply unacceptable to a certain set of GMs.

Willful negation of the ability to further an agenda of some sort... some preferred outcome, some setting aesthetic, some predetermined element that is perturbed by the ability.

All of which are examples of poor GMing, in my eyes. The first is about an instance of poor GMing... the second is about ingrained ideas that lead to poor GMing. The third could be either.

 

[pemerton]

he is being generous with his time offering detailed explanations, against often rude and hostile interrogations of his ideas.

This stood out to me! How do you determine who is being generous, who rude and hostile, and who dishonest?

I mean, maybe some of us respond to long posts in this way:

I have no desire to spend accessible time reading posts that long. If you want to provide a concise example here I invited you to do so.

Or was that just a roundabout way of acknowledging generosity in the face of rude and hostile interrogation?

 

[Bedrockgames]

This stood out to me! How do you determine who is being generous, who rude and hostile, and who dishonest?

I mean, maybe some of us respond to long posts in this way:
Or was that just a roundabout way of acknowledging generosity in the fact of rude and hostile interrogation?

I certainly have been short with you at times. And I wish I weren't. But you also have a very aggressive interrogating style (so it isn't like it falls out of the sky either)

 

[pemerton]

The problem with players treating NPCs as abstract entities is not because different systems have different approaches. No, the problem is that for different reasons across the decades, a small number of players will treat NPCs as playing pieces on a board, quest givers in an MMORPG, stuff to be killed for loot.

This doesn't seem to me to have any relevance to anything being discussed in this thread. Or to any discussion of the extent to which Torchbearer 2e uses some techniques that are very similar to classic D&D.

 

[pemerton]

I certainly have been short with you at times. And I wish I weren't. But you also have a very aggressive interrogating style (so it isn't like it falls out of the sky either)

Who do you think the OP was aggressively interrogating? You seem to be the one who has entered the thread in an angry mood.

 

[Bedrockgames]

This stood out to me! How do you determine who is being generous, who rude and hostile, and who dishonest?

Well I certainly don't think Rob has been rude. And I do think he has been generous with his time because he doesn't typically post here and is stepping in to respond when his videos have come up. He seems very restrained to me. You and I have both been rude at times I think. @Hawkeye has taken positions I find frustrating at times, because I strongly disagree with them, but I wouldn't say he has been rude. I think it is about tone, intensity, aggression of posting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Who do you think the OP was aggressively interrogating?

No. I think the OP is more than reasonable.

You seem to be the one who has entered the thread in an angry mood.

Well lol I wouldn't say entered angry. But I will say I have certainly chosen to be angry at certain points in the discussion. That is fair

 

[pemerton]

Well I certainly don't think Rob has been rude.

See, here we disagree. He called me dishonest. And then when I objected, doubled down on it.

Maybe it's a cultural thing? I'm in Australia, here it's generally considered rude to accuse people of dishonesty.

 

[Bedrockgames]

See, here we disagree. He called me dishonest. And then when I objected, doubled down on it.

Maybe it's a cultural thing? I'm in Australia, here it's generally considered rude to accuse people of dishonesty.

Okay fair enough. I will let Rob address that point. I saw that more as Rob sticking up for himself in the face of rudeness (he didn't come out the gate swinging at you, to me it seemed like he was enduring some unwarranted barbs and mentioned something a feeling he wouldn't have otherwise voiced because it had built up).

 

[Bedrockgames]

Maybe it's a cultural thing? I'm in Australia, here it's generally considered rude to accuse people of dishonesty.

I don't know. There probably is a cultural thing. I think there is probably also a background thing. But keep in mind one of the reasons he is in this discussion is because you have invoked videos of his sessions, and you have even gone to his blog and linked his points about sandbox design: this might have been another thread but it is still part of the picture). Those are pretty aggressive moves. I think Rob is fine with it, but I also think it makes people defensive when you draw on that kind of evidence like it is a court of law to debate someone about play styles. I was involved in another thread not too long ago and someone went through my youtube videos to find a recording of me saying something that sounded like the opposite position of what I was saying in the thread itself. When someone goes off-site to sift through your blog, your youtube, and bring it back to make a point, it feels a bit invasive IMO.