Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="darkbard" data-source="post: 7353304" data-attributes="member: 1282">I'm not really sure what you mean about my &quot;show[ing] upset.&quot; Though I've read every post in this thread, I think I've only poste five or six times, and most of those posts have been to praise pemerton's equanimity in the face of ruthless assault.This gets at the heart of the initial post: if worldbuilding (as subsequently defined as secret backstory to preclude PC action declarations) can possibly be used to curtail player agency (for all the reasons ennumerated throughout the thread), but principled play demands that it not be used so (that would result in an abusive GM), what purpose does it hold beyond this possibility.And if player-centered games provide all the same depth of play experiences (as I hope this thread has adequately demonstrated) as secret backstory games, then what other possible purpose can secret backstory hold other than to serve as a GM's ace-in-the-hole to negate player agency and move the game to preauthored concerns?What is the purpose of having the capability of doing something if one never exercises that right? Isn't this just another way of reframing the OP?Generally, I'm a huge critic of absolutist frameworks, but I have a hard time negating the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's too easy to convince oneself that juuust this one time nudging things to my GM agenda will make for a better game for everyone. And thus the floodgates may open.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="darkbard, post: 7353304, member: 1282"] I'm not really sure what you mean about my "show[ing] upset." Though I've read every post in this thread, I think I've only poste five or six times, and most of those posts have been to praise pemerton's equanimity in the face of ruthless assault. This gets at the heart of the initial post: if worldbuilding (as subsequently defined as secret backstory to preclude PC action declarations) can possibly be used to curtail player agency (for all the reasons ennumerated throughout the thread), but principled play demands that it not be used so (that would result in an abusive GM), what purpose does it hold beyond this possibility. And if player-centered games provide all the same depth of play experiences (as I hope this thread has adequately demonstrated) as secret backstory games, then what other possible purpose can secret backstory hold other than to serve as a GM's ace-in-the-hole to negate player agency and move the game to preauthored concerns? What is the purpose of having the capability of doing something if one never exercises that right? Isn't this just another way of reframing the OP? Generally, I'm a huge critic of absolutist frameworks, but I have a hard time negating the idea that absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's too easy to convince oneself that juuust this one time nudging things to my GM agenda will make for a better game for everyone. And thus the floodgates may open. [/QUOTE]

Verification