Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5215148" data-attributes="member: 2205">Grrrr... Forgot to add one of the main thrusts of my "argument" here.Let's take an example.  Player comes up with a player concept.  He's this guy named "Luke" who's a young farmer kid, apparently orphaned, and raised by his aunt and uncle.  He's not satisfied with the boring agrarian life, though, so when he finds out from this old man who lives nearby that his father wasn't just a traveling merchant, but was in fact a mystical warrior charged with protecting the realm from evil, who was murdered by a traitor in their organization, he decides to take up the adventuring life and follow in his father's footsteps.Fair enough backstory, right?Well, let's say that the GM later makes this traitor from the backstory a recurring character in the campaign, and that this recurring character claims to the PC that he never murdered his father; in fact he is his father, and that the old man lied to him all along.  Big surprise.  The player and his group manage to escape the clutches of this villain NPC, and the player decides to confront the old man about the claim.  The old man kinda shrugs and says something to the effect of "Well, what I told you was true... from a certain point of view."If I'm reading y'all right, this is the point where Luke's player is perfectly justified in complaining about the GM "rewriting" his backstory for him, meddling in territory that should be the player's turf, and is engaging in outright DM dickery, right?If that's your claim, then we are so fundamentally on different pages about this issue that our conversation has basically run it's course.  We're just way too different about what we think makes a great game vs. a frustrating one to have much more to add to each other.:shrug:</blockquote>

Verification