In what universe is it more "absolutist" to offer 3 options than to only offer 2?
How is me saying "A GM should have the freedom to say no" more absolutist than a gang of pseudo-intellectual cunts saying "The GM is FORBIDDEN from saying No, he must say yes or roll the dice"??
THEY are the ones who want a powerless GM that is given no authority to act without express player permission. They are the ones who say you are "literally brain damaged" if you don't play their way. They are the absolutists in this.
And in pages and pages of bitching at me, and complaining about what I said, and feigning outrage, and pretending to be ordinary people who just happened on this blog and yet strongly disagree with me while expressing explicit Forge propaganda slogans, and all the other cavalcade of nonsense and distraction, there's one thing the Swine have NOT done all this time. They have yet to show a single scenario where you can have narrative-control mechanics and NOT lose Immersion as the cost.
That's the core of my point in all these entries, and yet they have never been able to actually address it.
All arguments against what I've written that weren't just insult or incoherence amount to one of the following:
a) "Immersion is not the goal of RPG play" - except it very clearly is, to change that you need to change the definition of RPG and suddenly you're not talking about the same thing anymore at all. So if your only defense is changing the very definition of an RPG, you are not refuting my point, you are just saying "ok, yes, the Pundit is RIGHT, and Narrative-control mechanics always remove at least some immersion, but we've arbitrarily decided that Immersion should be removed as a goal for RPGs, even though that would mean they'd not be RPGs anymore".
b) "you are presenting a worst-case scenario/distrust players/etc" -I have clearly shown I am not, I've presented increasingly 'Best Case Scenarios' and shown how the argument still stands regardless
c) "you are a mean terrible person/hate Storygames" -both true, but in no way address the point.
d) "you've put up a strawman" - In what way is this a Strawman? If I show that in every single instance that you put ice in a pot of boiling water the ice will melt, that's not a strawman, that's just proving a consistent truth. It's not in any way a 'strawman' to point out that every single time you jump into "player control space" you must, by definition, be jumping out of "immersion space". It's just a law of nature.
You will note that NONE of these arguments have even ATTEMPTED to explain how you could have player-based narrative-control and still retain the same level of Immersion as if you didn't. Because everyone knows that's not possible.
And they won't. Otherwise they'd have done it already instead of pussyfooting around while trying to claim that I'm discussing exceptional cases rather than the core fact
Currently Smoking: Mastro de Paja Bent Apple + Gawith's Squadron Leader