I don't really agree that you can do this and still have a game. It's a theoretical position that says that the GM has authority over everything, including player action declarations, albeit in a retroactive sense. I mean, if this is the position you're staking, then the game is really Mother May I with a side of "pray I don't alter the deal further."
I agree with the aphorism that "Whatever the DM says goes and if he says enough bad stuff (word changed to protect the innocent), the players go too". That does not change the truth of my assertion in any way.
There's a pretty notable difference between changing what's in the GM's notes, which requires only the GM, and changing what happened at the table, in the shared fiction, which requires checking with everyone. I mean, if you don't, then you're one of those stories.
You point was that something changeable was not established fiction despite me saying that by my rule I would not change what I had established even if the players didn't know about it. You said this because "in theory" I could change it. Well very much so, I can "in theory" change anything.
I strive to always assume good faith gaming. Don't make your argument contingent on bad faith just to make a point.
I consider all of my approaches good faith gaming. When I don't change the world under my characters feet I consider that good faith gaming. If I suddenly cause one of my villains to suddenly change his spellbook to a different spell, I consider that bad faith whether the PCs are aware of his spell book or not.
We aren't going to agree on this and I don't think you've made your point. We can agree to disagree as I don't think we are making progress on this particular point.
Yup, and you don't really know, do you? What's a dissociative mechanic if not hitpoints and character levels? These seem fine. Every complaint I've seen that throws mechanics under the bus because they're "dissociative" is usually ignoring massive "dissociative" mechanics all around, just because they're used to those mechanics, so of course they're not a problem.
We've debated this ad infinitum. I don't think you are even capable of comprehending OR you are so blind to the other side you can't allow yourself to see the truth. We've debated this enough though and I don't want to go down that rabbit hole. Again we just need to agree to disagree.
I don't doubt your experience. There are plenty of GMs not good a improv. I've played in prepped campaigns that were a mess, too. Does that mean I can dismiss prep? Nope, it's a great way to do things. I'd appreciate some reciprocity (<-- favorite word) on this.
I have repeatedly said that if your game is fun for you and your players are having fun then you are doing it right FOR YOU. I have said that from the beginning. Obviously we know that even a prepped game has a time when the DM has to roleplay and NPC and answer questions (hopefully based on well laid out background) off the cuff. Still the answers are based upon not exactly written down. I minimize these situations as best I can but I cannot detail every brain cell. I do develop enough of a story background though that the answers often spring to mind based upon what I know of that NPC. So I don't make it up as a way of advancing some game agenda. (See the video above for examples)
Shrug, I guess a position where no one can actually say anything is something? It certainly insulates everyone from actually looking at their play in any critical way.
Well for many situations you cannot. I'm not drawing any conclusions beyond gaming. The enjoyment of a game is a very subjective thing. No matter how popular a game is there are people who don't like it and some games while not widely popular have a very fanatically devoted following. That is the beauty of a marketplace. I think the d20 OGL for allowing a lot of the things we all like. I absolutely do not want to convert everyone to one style of gaming. I will speak in defense of my style if I believe it is misrepresented or attacked unfairly.
Thanks for this, but you're in error if you think I'm not extremely aware of your approach -- I just got done responding to you that I've used it, recently. So, try to reconcile that I 1) know your approach, 2) think it's a good approach to use for at least some of my own gaming, and 3) am still saying what I am saying.
You keep saying this yet I've never disputed it. It is possible for all three of these things to be true. Some people like apples and oranges, some people like apples only, and others like oranges only.
What you seem to be missing in my posts is that I'm not arguing that prep isn't an excellent framework from which to provide consistent fiction, even across years, but rather that it is not at the same level of "real" as what's entered into the game. This is because you can change it without repercussions, permission, or issue at any time. You can add to it. You can subtract from it. I mean, your story about the traitor, it's possible that you wrote yourself a nice bit of fiction in the intervening years and changed what you conceived for that character during that time, so maybe it was prepped he was a traitor, but you've changed it. The player reads your fictional piece, and that's the truth now.
But all of this is just because you've decreed it. I've explained above. Also you quoted me many times across several posts and not every response was directed at you. So realize I have others besides yourself that I answer on occasion.
Until someone else knows it, it's not fixed.
For you this is true. For me this is not true.
No. The story of the characters is the sessions. I think my analogy of the book though fits. You are arguing that the only fiction in a book is what you have read. I am arguing that the rest of the book is still part of the fiction.
Ovi, thanks. No d.
The only "truth" is what's shared. Prior to this, it is, at best, a framework to present the shared fiction, and can be changed. You've locked in on "but I don't change it" and that's cool, but it doesn't change the fact that it can be easily changed. If things are true because I choose them to be true, then this is not a useful definition of true. Your argument here suggests that a thing is true if it isn't changed, and somehow not true if it is changed, when it's occupying the same space. I mean, I might make some notes for a game a year in advance, and then, a week before a game, drag those out, review them, and decided I don't like how they work out and make some changes. Accordingly, I've now rendered them not true? Yeah, I can't get behind this at all. Instead, I present a clean, clear boundary -- it becomes true in the shared fiction only when it's shared. Prior to that, it's only the GM's notes.
You can repeat this one billion times and you still won't be right. So don't bother further restating the same argument in different forms. No point. Let's agree to disagree. You are basing your beliefs on campaign norms and social rules. Me too. Mine are different.
And Rule 0, IMNSHO, is a terrible rule. It's talking about how the rules can be changed to suit the game (ie, they're not locked and inviolable), it's not establishing the GM as dictator, empowered to change anything anytime.
It is actually. It's not about houseruling. It's about making in game judgments about what happened and NOT being bound by rule 1.3.2.5 when you as DM deem it does not work for him. In my campaign the game rules that the players read and that the characters understand as the basic physics of the world are the prevailing opinions of that world's society. So they are mostly accurate from experience. If a player says, this situation doesn't comport with the rules I know, I always answer "Are you going to believe your own eyes or what some scholars in musty libraries wrote about years before?"
Now practically I follow the rules of course almost always. I'm just saying what rule 0 means. It's a good rule. If the DM is really working to have a fun game there won't be an issue. And if he is not then no amount of rules is going to save him.