Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7353338" data-attributes="member: 16814">Ruthless... assault...? 1) principles play would be to curtail action negation through secret backstory.  If it's never used, there's not point.  No, instead, that was about the mere existence of secret backstory being enough to mean that the DM will not only occasionally veto a declaration, but that they will instead veto every declaration that doesn't fit their 'choose-your-own-adventure' novel backstory.  This is clearly false.2) I don't think player-centered games provide all of the same depth of play experience.  I think they provide a different play experience, one that can also be deep.  This is a point that many have agreed upon, the chess vs checkers argument.  The playstyles incorporate different approaches and goals and so can't provide the same experience because they aren't tuned to do so.  You can mix and match a bit, but it's mostly importing some traits into a mostly DM or mostly player driven game.3) the words you used here 'DM ace-in-the-hole' is exactly the kind of phrasing I'm talking about.  This wording implies that the DM is using their backstory not to further play, but to arbitrarily restrict play in a way that is intentional to limit player action declaration.  It implies an adversarial relationship where the DM is using the game to control the players, rather than a game where the DM is trying to enable players.  You've chosen to frame your argument in a way that says anyone playing that way is just looking to screw over the players and don't want to let go of that power.  It's false and exactly why the arguments are rebutted so strongly.See above -- it's not about never doing it, it's about doing it in pursuit of aiding players, not punishing them.  Yet every example presented is one that assumes the DM will use secret backstory to punish players.A few people have mentioned the matter of trust and this has always been loudly dismissed as unimportant, but I can't read this argument as anything other than a lack of trust.  And also a lack of imagination that many DMs don't want to run that kind of game.  I mean, if you can find DMs that enjoy running player facing games (many of which incorporation DM fiat rules but then provide principles to not use them arbitrarily) that would imply there are DMs that aren't interested in the kind of degenerate play you argue is inevitable.  Why can't there be similar DMs that play in a different style?When you shift to imagining that those that do not play like you do are all slowly devolving into the worst examples of play because you dislike their playstyle, why are you remotely surprised when your arguments for that are met with strong disagreement?  Why are you surprised when those, like [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], make those same arguments they're met with strong disagreement?</blockquote>

Verification