What? Like Solipsism?One wonders if the person making these claims believes their own person extends to encompass all that they can observe or think on?
There's a lot of that still goin' around, even though you'd think in the 5e era there'd be less. Ideally, DMs should just feel free to run their games in their style, using the rules as a toolset & starting point to do so, and leave it to other DMs to do so in their ways, too. (With the obvious exception of organized play, like AL, were some consistency from table-to-table is desirable). But, invariable, someone is too insecure in their prefered style to just do it, and instead need to justify it to themselves as 'how the game is really meant to be played,' (whether that's based on a by-the-book reading of rules, or an assumed intent of the designers, or immemorial tradition or simulation/verisimilitude/whatever) and, then, by extension, to get on-line and make that argument to the circumambient ether.I think they are less serious arguments than attempts to justify a process of play that includes a gentlemen's agreement over what different participants can introduce to the fiction in an effort to improve the game - something I think that is neither justified by these red herrings nor which needs to be justified. It's not badwrongfun to cooperate together.
Of course, as soon as the second person does that, the circumambient ether erupts in flames.
Or as the Forge might've said, he's "not in Actor Stance." ::shrug::However, as soon as the player tries to declare something that is not about his PC's beliefs, feelings, or actions, but rather about the beliefs, feelings, or actions of NPCs or the existence of novel things in the fiction, then he's not playing his character. I can't believe I'm saying that, because I would have thought it was obvious and axiomatic, but here we are.
There are fundamental differences in approach among playing a character as if you were: creating & developing a character in fiction vs choreographing the actions of a fictional character to fulfill its role in a story vs portraying a fictional character on stage or screen vs inhabiting an alternate self in a dream or dissociative state vs literally 'playing' a typed or unique game-piece in accord with rules governing its moves.
IMHO, those approaches mostly, at worst, conflict on an aesthetic or theoretical level, they're not only compatible at the same table and/or workable in a variety of systems, but it's likely any given player's style is a mix of several of them rather than 'pure.'