Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8155403" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Maybe because I'm not talking about agency and haven't really been for 4 pages now?I've went back to my page 117 and gotten the 2 posts that really started this tangent.  Hopefully they help provide you some context and show the stakes around what is actually being discussed (why it ultimately matters).One of the biggest complaints brought up by proponents of non traditional style games is that the GM in a D&D game has total authority to modify results, etc.  If you are saying that possibility is actually present in many of these games then I kind of feel like I'm being sold a bunch of lies about them.  But as you said, that's certainly aside from the current discussion.I'm curious as to how you think he can?  In the games I've been discussing, I've been told that if the player gets true success then he gets exactly what he wanted.  I'm not seeing where that leaves room for DM input on what a success actually means?The quotes that started this tangent:Manbearcat here realized the consequences of having a player be able to author the solution to their problems and it's why he refused to call it authorship.  My posts since then have been about showing that it is actually authorship - because if it is then this criticism still stands.</blockquote>