NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9697472" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I mean, it's not just him. The thread at large has consistently treated it as such; the GM does not touch the character in any way, it is sacrosanct and belongs to the player alone, while the world is absolutely sacrosanct and belongs to the GM, never to be touched by the player except through declaring the character's actions. And it isn't even just this thread! That "the character is sacrosanct" attitude is as old as old-school D&D.No. But when previous posters have repeatedly and consistently argued that it isn't a continuum at all, that it is a hard binary and ne'er the twain shall meet, that it's NEVER okay for the players to have ANY such control at all, period, end of discussion? Then this argument falls apart.Because that's very much what people have done in this thread. Pretty consistently, actually. Player interference with the world, of any kind, is verboten, and likewise GM interference of any kind into what a character does, thinks, feels, etc.For God's sake, we had a whole tussle like two thousand posts back where people got persnickety about the GM giving even the VAGUEST descriptions of emotional response from the player characters. Your characterization of the argument simply rings hollow. It doesn't reflect how folks have actually argued here.Well, if I may, I would appreciate you humoring me on this point, as (you may have noticed) I kinda checked out of the thread for the preceding like 600 posts or so.Okay but now if people are using a word in ways that are overtly confusing to the rest of the thread, why are we not allowed to take umbrage with that?People did exactly that on your side, regarding the usage of long-established terms elsewhere on the intertubes, with clear definitions provided upon request, and that was rejected as unacceptable due to being confusing and (allegedly) trying to win the argument through definition alone. But now your vocabulary is perfectly acceptable and everyone else should kowtow to it? Our objections about your usage of terms are inadmissable on their face, but your objections to our vocabulary are so strong they not only must be heard, but must be heeded?This is precisely what I meant, way upthread, when I talked about double standards of argumentation here. Arguments that are (apparently) completely acceptable for the "traditional GM" side to make are, somehow, completely unacceptable when coming from anyone else. Why is that? Why do you get to declare your definitions, and we must follow them or else we're being unfair or inappropriate or irrational, but you can reject ours whenever you feel like just because you feel like it?</blockquote>

Verification