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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6318625" data-attributes="member: 42582">This is my take too.I picked up a copy of Fate Core recently, and this sidebar on p 74 seems relevant:GMs, remember that a player is ultimately responsible for everything that the character says and does. You can offer decision-based compels [=, roughly, imposing a small mechanical penalty on the player if s/he doesn't go along with the GM's idea for his/her PC's behaviour], but if the player doesn't feel like the decision is one that the character would make, don't force the issue . . . Instead, negotiate the terms of the compel until you find a decision the player is comfortable making [for his/her PC] . . . If you can't agree on something, drop it.That expresses a view fairly similar to mine, at least about the whole code-enforcement issue: it's one thing for the GM to work with a player to make the code, and loyalty/disloyalty, matter in play; it's another thing altogether for the GM to unilaterally override the players' conception of his/her PC and whether or not s/he is being faithful.I don't think this fully states the strength of your position. Because, unless I've misunderstood you, you are stating not only that the GM has sole authority over these initial matters of backstory, but also that the GM has ongoing authority during play. So not only does the GM get to tell the player what all the gods and their prescriptions are, but the GM gets to tell the player, as play actually takes place, whether or not the player's interpretation is correct.It's that second bit, rather than the first bit about backstory authority, that is my main departure from your approach.</blockquote>

Verification