Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6449790" data-attributes="member: 42582">I think it's hard to make strong generalisations over such a diverse group of people as those who play RPGs.That said, I have had personal experiences in which (3) is true, both as a GM encountering players for whom (3) is true - and who, once they recognise that I do not GM in that way, cease to act in bad faith. And I have had personal experiences in which I see players, suffering under the sort of GM you describe, make bad faith proposals to try and work around or beat the GM.I don't think that all forms of authorial control have this effect, though. For instance, the paladin player having his/her PC call for a warhorse doesn't seem to get in the way of advocacy.In a lot of contexts, the player of a cleric more-or-less dictating the outlook of his/her god won't underine player advocacy for the PC (it would if conflict between the priest and his/her god was meant to be a focus of play, but I'm assuming a context in which that's not the case).I don't think the box or beard cases,either, get in the way of advocacy - part of the role of giving the GM ultimate veto is to allow the GM to act on broader authorial considerations like genre integrity, overall backstory coherence, etc.</blockquote>