Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7603417" data-attributes="member: 4937">If you can agree with your friend to come over to their house, but first you have to check and make sure it's OK with your parents, you don't have authority.&nbsp;&nbsp; Authority is when you are in charge.&nbsp; You have the power and right make decisions, give orders, and enforce your wishes.&nbsp;&nbsp; If you have to ask, &quot;Mother may I?&quot;, it's not authority.Ok, yes.&nbsp; So far so good.I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make this any clearer, but &quot;adding to the story in some way&quot; and &quot;authority over their character&quot; are not the same things, and there is absolutely no conflict between having one and not the other.&nbsp;&nbsp; Just because you have authority over your character, does not mean you have a right to add things that are by definition external to the character.&nbsp;&nbsp; I'm at a loss to see how you don't understand that.&nbsp;&nbsp; But... it's just not.&nbsp;&nbsp; Francis is not part of the character.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is no conflict here.&nbsp; &nbsp; To the extent that player backstory does intersect with setting, in that a player creating a backstory wants to introduce things to the setting, then I've already explained how that issue is resolved in other posts.&nbsp; Essentially, neither the GM nor the player can unilaterally impose backstory on the other without some sort of permission.&nbsp;&nbsp; The player can't introduce a new character to the setting without permission of the GM (because the GM absolutely owns the setting), and the GM can't decide something happened to the player's character in the past without permission from the player (because the player absolute owns the PC).&nbsp; It's really simple.&nbsp; In practice, much of the time the two participants are happy to work with each other to create myth, but for very good reasons both sides must agree because there are times the player does not want his story altered by the GM and the GM doesn't want his setting altered by the player and each can have good and valid reasons for that.&nbsp;&nbsp; Seriously, Francis the Guard is obviously external to the character.&nbsp;&nbsp; This isn't even an interesting edge case like a Wizard's Familiar.&nbsp; The player's authority over the character does not extend to anything beyond his ability to play the character and make choices about the character.&nbsp;&nbsp; You have no more right to create Francis the Guard and expect him to exist than you do to create a +5 Holy Avenger and give it to yourself, and no matter how you twist, you can't make Francis the Guard part of the character because Francis is obviously an NPC.Wait???&nbsp; What?!?!?&nbsp; OK, we're just done.&nbsp; This isn't even amusing anymore.&nbsp;&nbsp; I said that it teaches that &quot;some&quot; part of the game belongs to the GM, and you have somehow twisted that into me saying that &quot;no part of the game whatsoever belongs to the GM&quot;?&nbsp;&nbsp; I have no words.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7603417, member: 4937"] If you can agree with your friend to come over to their house, but first you have to check and make sure it's OK with your parents, you don't have authority. Authority is when you are in charge. You have the power and right make decisions, give orders, and enforce your wishes. If you have to ask, "Mother may I?", it's not authority. Ok, yes. So far so good. I'm sorry, but I don't know how to make this any clearer, but "adding to the story in some way" and "authority over their character" are not the same things, and there is absolutely no conflict between having one and not the other. Just because you have authority over your character, does not mean you have a right to add things that are by definition external to the character. I'm at a loss to see how you don't understand that. But... it's just not. Francis is not part of the character. There is no conflict here. To the extent that player backstory does intersect with setting, in that a player creating a backstory wants to introduce things to the setting, then I've already explained how that issue is resolved in other posts. Essentially, neither the GM nor the player can unilaterally impose backstory on the other without some sort of permission. The player can't introduce a new character to the setting without permission of the GM (because the GM absolutely owns the setting), and the GM can't decide something happened to the player's character in the past without permission from the player (because the player absolute owns the PC). It's really simple. In practice, much of the time the two participants are happy to work with each other to create myth, but for very good reasons both sides must agree because there are times the player does not want his story altered by the GM and the GM doesn't want his setting altered by the player and each can have good and valid reasons for that. Seriously, Francis the Guard is obviously external to the character. This isn't even an interesting edge case like a Wizard's Familiar. The player's authority over the character does not extend to anything beyond his ability to play the character and make choices about the character. You have no more right to create Francis the Guard and expect him to exist than you do to create a +5 Holy Avenger and give it to yourself, and no matter how you twist, you can't make Francis the Guard part of the character because Francis is obviously an NPC. Wait??? What?!?!? OK, we're just done. This isn't even amusing anymore. I said that it teaches that "some" part of the game belongs to the GM, and you have somehow twisted that into me saying that "no part of the game whatsoever belongs to the GM"? I have no words. [/QUOTE]

Verification