Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7491771" data-attributes="member: 6919838">just a few points..."unique" is binary. Something is unique or it isn't. You seem to be saying there is some third case?if you the player under your "my fluff- jerk- irrational" rule gets to declare "unique" to a process in your backstory - then you have defined an element of the broader world - it does not or has not ever happened before. There are no other examples of this. not one, not ever Gm go suck it. M<y fluff and i get to call dibs and unique on this.At my table - theres the door if this is deemeed by your to be out of bounds for the Gm..If you get to say under your "my fluff jerk irrational" rule this process exists in your world cuz it happened to me and its not unique - then again you have made a definitive statement about the broader world and established a tie between these events and the barbarian rage feature. At my table - theres the door again.Now you can keep trying to redefine down the process key elements making ti more and more convoluted - first change, exact moment, under a full moon, within 60' of the seashore, both wearing purple, downwind from an orc fart etc etc etc until you get so silly in search for a third way to get near to but not quite at uniwue all you want but well before then you have crossed into the realm of construing background to fit your rule - which is funny thing often what some use to complain about minmaxers.Second point of discord..."DM to assume control of the PC (including the PC's backstory) without the player's consent, "Again a strawman. Take the usual Xp for defeating strawmen.What part of "discussion between Gm and player to reach agreement" and the other various ways it has been stated by me and by others leads you to see this statement as a summary or a counter position at all?Two people working together to reach an agreement is not taking control or without consent. One side refusing to accept another's proposal is not taking control... without consent. The part that seems to be being insisted on "without consent" is that you get to decide what is YOUR FLUFF and you get to decide whether or not the GM can touch it or not. Third point"The forum makes us all seem a lot more adversarial than we are in real life, because we are supporting our positions in a debate here, but in real life it doesn't work like that."The forum doesn't choose your words for you without your consent. The forum doesn't take control of your keyboard. The forum did not make you choose to use jerk and irrational and insert without consent etc etc etc.just like the forum did not make me say repeatedly things about both sides working together to reach an accord but that this accord must not start with jerk, irrational and so on.And of course, there is a HUGE difference in taking control" pf PC choices in play during the game (outside the normal rules for such as in Dominate and fear and the like) and not accepting a backstory/fluff as unique hands-off at chargen. (Especially for one so very derivative of a pretty normal trope.)Finally..."No, I see it as 'lines of demarcation', with the players getting their PC and the DM getting everything else. Do you really think that this is unfair to the DM? Do you think he should control the PCs too?"i was trying to give the benefit of the doubt but you make it hard...in this post you used "take control of the character", "without consent" gave a long example which spotlighted at its end down to saves to make choices in play for your character and keep harping back and then this final statement again with your overly broad use of terminology.It really seems like you see Gm having influence or veto on backstory/background/fluff for a PC coming into or starting a game in the same light or maybe even equivalent to a Gm taking away during play the player's ability to make decisions for his character.  If that is not your position then you sure seem to kep putting those two concepts side by side and then using overly broad statements that could apply to either and that makes it seem like you are leading towards that but covering your posterior by not explicitly stating it. (Some could view that as a intentional form of misleading - painting one with the other without drawing the direct link. Some Tv talking heads are absolute masters of it.)But maybe in your case its not intentional and just another case of "The forum made me do it!" in true Flip Wilson style. i do appreciate your discussion BTW... tho i think there is not much more meat left on these bones. You have helped me greatly as far as any uncertainty i had at all regarding the current or modern varieties of what passes for "player agency" and their value to my games or maybe RPGs in general.</blockquote>

Verification