Player Control, OR "How the game has changed over the years, and why I don't like it"

[Zhaleskra]

Can't someone both be attached to a character and be aware that said character is a bunch of stuff on some paper or some data on a computer? I guess I'm going on the over-attached angle too, as I'm willing to let characters I'm attached to die.

That's part of the appeal of RPGs to me: it's a story that's being written as it's played. Perhaps my character's part in it ends early.

While I agree that certain characters have plot immunity in actual fiction, I disagree with a reason I saw on another board earlier. James Bond does not have plot immunity because he's James Bond, he has plot immunity because the book is already written and he survived.

 

[billd91]

In other words, it's not a double standard because martial abilities are supposed to be inferior to subject to restrictions that do not apply to magical abilities in the first place?

Subject to certain kinds of restrictions - yes. In most lore, legends, literature, what are the guys who aren't using magic doing? The fantastic things they pull off are usually exaggerations (sometimes extreme) of what normal people can do. Beowulf holds his breath a long time. The heroes of the Iliad slaughter hundreds of enemies on the battlefield in gross and bloody ways. Fantastic stuff, but generally within certain bounds of behavior. When they do deviate, magic is usually involved like Achilles's invulnerability.

Magic doesn't have those bounds. For every different magical system, different standards are constructed. Rune magics of Scandinavian legends operate in particular ways. Chi sorcerers operate in another. Medieval alchemists in another. Tolkien elven magic in another. And D&D sorcerers in yet another again. So it's not a double standard. It's a different standard because of different expectations.

 

[Fifth Element]

Can't someone both be attached to a character and be aware that said character is a bunch of stuff on some paper or some data on a computer?

Absolutely. But that's a nice middle ground, and on the internet middle ground does not get much play.

 

[pemerton]

Ha ha, different tones in your reply to parallel (if not the same) questions of the DM's role in the story. In the former, flat disagreement with no further contribution. In the latter, a more diplomatic tone.

LostSoul gave a reason that is related to the distinctive roles of player and GM in the game (in particular, the player's role of advocating for his/her PC). If you did the same upthread, then apologies - I missed it. But I took you to be talking about the GM having a privilege to preserve (what s/he takes to be) consistency. LostSoul is not talking about a GM's privilege, but a GM's duty. These are quite different things.

 

[NoWayJose]

LostSoul gave a reason that is related to the distinctive roles of player and GM in the game (in particular, the player's role of advocating for his/her PC). If you did the same upthread, then apologies - I missed it. But I took you to be talking about the GM having a privilege to preserve (what s/he takes to be) consistency. LostSoul is not talking about a GM's privilege, but a GM's duty. These are quite different things.

The context was a theoretical head-butting between player vs DM on a zombie knocking a hydra prone. DM: No way. Theoretical Player: Yes, way! NoWayJose: The reasoning you are viscerally disagreeing (hereby defined as the "problem") is because you and the DM have different priorities over handling the same scenario, thus a conflict of interest. I was just defining the "problem". Who is "right" in the theoretical zombie-vs-hydra (if such a thing can even be determined) is what the last 15 pages are about.

Even if I was explicitly stating that "the GM has any special entitlement to have his/her suspension of disbelief preserved" (which I wasn't, and if I was, not in those absolute terms), then you stating that "I agree with him rather than him", is akin to writing "QFT" or "This", that is, "Here I am, pemerton, casting my vote". Not a criticism per se, merely the observation I had when I wrote "flat disagreement with no further contribution". At least that's way I read it, but I apologize if I misunderstood.

 

[TheUltramark]

Are you capable of "defending" your game style without denigrating others?

Because right now you're doing a lousy job of it.

how am I denigrating anyone?
I am disagreeing, but I have said - again, a million times - if thats how you play and you have fun doing it, then 'keep rollin til the wheels fall off'

yet 4 out of 5 (unofficial stat) posts seem to be denigrating my style of play, which -not that it's any of your business- me and my game enjoy boundlessly, so, if at my table I have a home rule that slitherers cannot be knocked prone, how on earth does that affect anyone else on this board????

 

[TheUltramark]

An approach which doesn't want to imagine how a slithering beast can be affected by the prone condition, doesn't want to imagine how a stone golem can be petrified, and doesn't want to imagine how bats can be blinded is more imaginative?

again..."because it says so on my sheet" is not imaginative IMO
clearly most people disagree

 

[TheUltramark]

And personally I find this phrase slightly annoying. Yes, the rules are there to serve the game. But it doesn't follow from this that the rules are therefore to be ignored - because perhaps following the rules is part of the game! For me, to date at least, this has certainly been the case for 4e. Following the rules has produced an interesting and gripping game. And an important part of that has been applying the rules that provide for player-initiated and player-driven improvisation and narrative.

That's exaclty MY point
improv and narrative are the keys at our table

 

[Fifth Element]

how am I denigrating anyone?

By saying you play a "more imaginative" style, in a game that's all about imagination. You don't see how easy it is to take this as "you don't play right?"

 

[NoWayJose]

By saying you play a "more imaginative" style, in a game that's all about imagination. You don't see how easy it is to take this as "you don't play right?"

Conversely, by saying he plays a "more imaginative" style game, it's equally easy to take this as "I think my way is more imaginative, and I'm not liable for your interpretation of this as an absolute statement that infringes on your self".