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: 9080529" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Well then, now you know the annoyance of being told that something you do simply does not work the way people keep repeatedly, and falsely, describing it. Because that is how these discussions so frequently go. You have asserted that this process creates situations where the players simply act with impunity, writing for themselves whatever they want, whenever they want, to whatever extent they want it, and the GM can apparently do nothing whatsoever but meekly accept because (apparently) the rules of this unmentioned game state that that is what happens.But we ask folks to mention which game, and suddenly all that specificity goes out the window. The one example people held up as actually crossing the line was Flashbacks in BitD, which I was previously ignorant of and thus could not comment upon. Then I educated myself, and found that none of the things people asserted about it were true. It isn't a blank check (it can only be a thing done in preparation for the current heist), it isn't out of the blue (the game design explicitly says that the PCs prepared but saves actually defining what was done for later), it cannot be done without cost (you must effectively spend extremely precious HP to get one), it has risk of failure, the player merely states what they sought to do (so no fiat declaration of what actually occurred),So. What are these games which do the thing that frightens you so? Which game or games crosses this line where the player becomes a rival godhead, unstoppable, invincible, ensuring everything works perfectly for herself, and all the poor, beleaguered GM can do is nod meekly and pray that the tatters of their beautiful tapestry of a world may still, by some miracle, survive these horrific assaults from heedless, ungrateful players foolishly granted godlike power?Yes, I played that up for poetic effect. I like hyperbole and long words. But I also do so because now you have seen how it feels. You have, IIRC repeatedly, made claims in that direction, massively inflating what the player is (allegedly) permitted to do and, tacitly, presenting the GM as a powerless victim. Through my previous posts, you have now seen what it looks like to have the tables reversed, to have the almighty and implacable GM whose word--whose world--is as iron, unbending, unyielding, forged in the fires of 2 or 20 or whatever years ago, with players given no room whatsoever to question or comment because the big book said so.So, instead of such hyperbole, which you have found frustrating when it is turned upon you so you understand how it feels when it is turned upon me, let's talk about games that actually exist, and people that actually interact, and structures that can actually be helpful at real tables. Please? I think that could be a lot of fun if we give it a shot.Guess what: I favor that too!Critical words bolded for emphasis.Easier, but not essential. You can still achieve it while having a slightly more open attitude about how this is done. Again, this is not that far from what many real GMs actually do, both in overall world building (because perfectly nailing down every possible factoid of an entire world is way too much work) and in working with players who ostensibly understand one small part of the world, their character's lived experiences, better than the GM does. This creates the possibility of a dialogue, where it is not strictly the case that the GM is always right, but instead that both sides must work toward an agreeable end-state, because players should respect the world and its history, but GMs should equally (perhaps even more highly, because GMs are so much more powerful) respect the character and its history.Impartiality: True, absolute impartiality is not only impossible but undesirable. We do not actually want GMs that don't care. We want GMs who are fair rather than biased, consistent rather than capricious, and supportive rather than tyrannical.In D&D: If the claim is about D&D, then why do you and others keep bringing up the specter of some mysterious other game, where players can fiat declare massive personal advantage whenever they like, without cost or challenge? This point fails because you aren't talking about D&D. You (collectively) are talking about these other games and how they are in some way flawed or inferior because they permit or even mandate such behavior. Hence why I keep asking what game, which rules, etc.And everything after "the point of the players" is all, fully, completely true in all the allegedly problematic games I've played or read. Because, again, there is no "oh I suddenly remembered that this Set Priest is actually Thulsa Doom, so now that's true GM, hah, suck on THAT!" Nothing of the sort. This specter you (collectively) keep raising doesn't exist. Not even in the Blades Flashback mechanic, which I discussed at length above.Nothing you have said here fails to apply to any of the allegedly problematic mechanics people talk about.DW: Spout Lore and Discern Realities require both that the player be actively consulting or observing; they require dice rolls which may fail; and they cannot simply have the player dictate what happens. (Of course, the GM could just let the player do that if they feel like it, but that would mean the GM wants the player to tell them, nothing in the rules forces or implies this.)Blades: I already gave a mini-breakdown above, but Flashbacks are linked to an established fact of the world (every PC prepared for the Score, it just was done intentionally "off camera"), have a pretty serious cost (Stress, effectively HP, of which each PC has only nine total), must actually be roleplayed out and not just fiat declared, involve a scene described and framed by the GM, involve a roll that can simply fail, and must be limited to what could actually be practically achieved by the player within the established context (e.g. a first-time commoner burglar saying "I try to seduce the King!" has quite clearly gone beyond his means). Not one thing about Flashbacks requires that the GM surrender all possible facts nor control of the overall direction or world, nor skips over the value of the possibility of failure, nor...whatever the third thing is, because as far as I can tell that one literally IS just the GM fiat declaring "nope you fail sorry!" (I hope I'm mistaken there, because I'm sincerely hoping you were serious about rejecting such capriciousness.)</blockquote>

Verification