Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 6113659" data-attributes="member: 4937">You are confusing, "How to run BW." with, "How I would run BW."   Likewise, you are confusing "can't" with "in my opinion you ought not to".I'm not sure that I follow you, but if I do follow you, the belief seems to me to be a narrow stand in for something like, "Rights exist to protect the innocent and civilized; they don't apply to the scum who prey on the innocent." or perhaps, "There is nothing I wouldn't do to protect X.", or even, "The ends justify the means."  In that case, you seem to be dismissing a moral problem or a belief of such general relevancy that I have never been in a lenghty campaign where the issue didn't come up at least once.  Stated or unstated, every character tends to have one belief or the other on this.  But then again, as I said, I'm not sure what you are trying to say here.This is a statement that is being made in my opinion in full and flagrant defiance of the statements I've made in this thread.  You are completely confused, and I'd quote myself to prove it but what would be the point.  It's not that I have resolute views about what a true king must be, but that settings have resolute views about what a true king must be.  The statement, "I am the true king", is either delusional or asserts a fact about setting and backstory that must be congruent with each other from the outset.  The society doesn't need to recognize this congruence, obviously, if we are runing the 'Unrecognized King' story, but the 'Unrecognized True King' story is the single most important story in all of Western Civilization and reoccurs in some many important places in history and literature that I won't begin to enumerate them.  If you think you've got a blank slate on that story you are delusional.  If you don't create a Myth, it's 100% gauranteed that everyone at the table will have a some version of the myth in their heads and conflict at the table level is just or more likely than conflict in the story.  Nor can you blunder through this creating Myth as you go and gaurantee that you'll end up avoiding conflict or with a story that satisfies the player.  This is not a matter of the GM being vindicative or of the GM's opinions.  This is a matter of the GM not responding to the player's agency through backstory authority, but instead thinking he can just leave it all up in the air.Again, you have it backwards.  I believe that your insistance that there is no setting, that the belief 'I am the true king' need only have forestory relevance, all but guarantees that a player that is putting the nature, source, and character of true kingship up for grabs won't get the story they expect.  Or at the very least, the same sort of conflict over what makes a good scene that you have declared is a defence against the problems in some of the examples is very much likely.  You seem to continually assert that backstory gaurantees forestory.  You've seemingly never paused to consider that the sorts of fixed in stone forestories you don't apparantly don't like, Adventure Paths run to script for example, usually have that problem precisely because they are completely independent of player backstory.Do you really think I care if it is or not?  I'm not offended by insults.  The things that bother me, get me emotional,  are mischaracterizations and logical fallacies.  My '???' was not over an 'insult', but over the 'I'm shutting down further conversation by fiat declaration'.   If you are convinced that there is one true way, then we really are wasting our breath.I think we've found yet another story you can't run.  So, if you can't run stories about the conflict between your own consciousness and divine dictates, and you can't run stories that test whether the ends justify the means...Nevermind, I'm not sure I want to know the answer.</blockquote>

Verification