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="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7570144" data-attributes="member: 16814">I do not think you do, because you keep presenting arguments that are akin to taking tricks in poker.Frex, you're fixated on how the stat block of a D&D monster can cause a hard no in combat through secret backstory. This isn't terribly illuminating of anything other than how D&D is a GM-centered game in terms of authority. It certainly doesn't touch on games that aren't GM centered because such things as immunity to fire are either already clearly established in the fiction or are introduced in play, likely as the result of a failure where the GM is thwarting an intent of "kill it with fire." There are some things in the middle, but they tend to be poor examples and they start trying to shove camels through the eyes of needles.  Like 4e, with clear secret backstory in monster writeups that gets explained away as "the players can read the monster manuals so it's not secret it's just backstory"  Always found that a very weak argument for backstory not being secret -- if the not secret part depends on out of play homework assignments....Um, yes? I mean, that's the core of the MMI comparison, isn't it?  That the GM has all the authority and can force their desired outcome so all player action declarations are requests to the GM needing approval?  Fudging is just a less overt means of doing so.Ah, I think I'm following a bit better here.  You're saying that the GM altering mechanics through houseruling is somewhat analogous to fudging or using secret backstory. I disagree; this comparison is too loose. Firstly, this kind of unilateral houseruling is only possible in strongly GM centered games, so its existence is  not a good defense  against bad MMI play.  Secondly, it's not really analogous if such houserules are made public because then it's part of the mechanics in play.  The nature of an enemy is very rarely secret, so players have the ability to choose useful actions.And that last is an important distinction.  Monsters can have immunities to some player actions and this doesn't imply on GM centered adjudication if the knowledge is open and in play.  As you note, transparency is needed, but it's not hard and it doesn't prevent surprises in play.  When I run 5e, for example, I'm very open with monster statblocks.  I either foreshadow monster abilities strongly or I provide key information openly to characters with appropriate backgrounds or proficiencies. This is because I don't think an encounter is made more fun by the mage using a firebolt on a Death Knight only to fail but rather the mage making a choice knowing her fire speciality is off the table.Games that are more balanced between GM and player do not revolve around secret backstory.  Story Now games and No Myth games actively eschew it.  This is because secret backstory breaks the resolution engines of these games.  All backstory is either presented in scene framing or generated through play.  It's not.  The GM approval is still in effect.  Culturally, though, we tend to play combat differently, but this doesn't change that the GM still has ultimate approval.  To reference another thread, the compendium one that's now about shield master, one of the "sides" is entirely arguing from a GM centered perspective in combat, where the GM is the one that determines which mechanics are used to resolve player action declarations, up to and including when and which combat action mechanics are used.  That can't happen in a non-GM centered game.(For what it's worth, I disagree with that poster but find their arguments to be well thought out and consistent with the rules.)</blockquote>

Verification