A GMing telling the players about the gameworld is not like real life

darkbard said:

Right. And this is a huge difference between player-facing and GM-facing games. Exposure to more than one of these categories might help you see this, [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION].

Click to expand...

Do you really think that after all these discussions we don't understand the difference?

Maxperson said:

Do you really think that after all these discussions we don't understand the difference?

Click to expand...

I really can't speak to what you do or don't understand, Max. But I can state with confidence that Lanefan's posts, in general and in this specific instance, demonstrate that he filters his observations through a very particular scrim. And this specific post of his to which I responded demonstrates a conflation of two very different game design principles. If that isn't misunderstanding, I don't know what would be!

Ovinomancer said:

To expand, Legend Lore was/is just a more powerful way to pierce more closely guarded GM secrets. You're still asking the GM to tell you what's in his notes, which may be "nothing".

Spout Lore obliges the GM to tell you something relevant and useful in accordance with what you ask.

The difference is pretty big in use. Legend lore gets gets at more of the GM's fiction, while Spout Lore obliges the GM to create fiction in accordance with your question.

Click to expand...

And Spout Lore is akin to making a Intellegence (knowledge) check, while Legend Lore hides this sort of agency to learn such knowledge (much like many other things in D&D) behind a spell.

Maxperson said:

Do you really think that after all these discussions we don't understand the difference?

Click to expand...

You mean after all these discussions where y'all repeat the same misunderstandings, errors, and baseless assumptions regarding basic points about other playstyles and how other games are played and we are forced to repeat ourselves in explaining the basics all over again even after y'all claim to get it? You may understand it, but hopefully you can appreciate how we are often led to believe that y'all don't.

I know, for example, that the discussion of "fail forward" will inevitably come up again in some thread. And when it does, certain people who I know have been in conversations where "fail forward" is explained at great length by people in this thread will likely contribute their same misunderstandings about it. Which will result in the usual group attempting to correct their understanding, only for this person to just go back to square one again either in the same conversation or in a future one.

So if you have knowledge and understanding of these differences, then please demonstrate it at the outset rather than forcing us to retread old ground... again.

But if these differences between approaches and systems were actually understood and appreciated, [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], would someone be asking a question that deliberately seeks to suggest that there is no difference?

Maxperson said:

Do you really think that after all these discussions we don't understand the difference?

Click to expand...

Bluntly? Yes. The true mark of understanding a thing is the ability to advicate for it. I do not think you could fairly advocate for the play of, say, Dungeon World.

Change my mind.

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

Just going to point something out-

If there are, let's just say .... two points of view.*

And people who subscribe to those two points of view repeatedly say that the other side just doesn't understand them, that they don't have a real knowledge of the differences, and so on...


Maybe the real issue is that there isn't a failure of understanding, or communication, but simply that the two sides don't agree?


More often than not, most arguments between good-willed people that devolve into "You don't understand me," are really about, "Why don't you agree with me? Because I am right, and you are not."


*Yeah, yeah, that's very Manichean, and life ain't like that.

Click to expand...

True, but not entirely. Yes, often "you don't understand" is subbed in for "you don't agree" but, having been on one side and then actually grokking the other and now doing both, actually not understanding is a big part of the problem. Not understanding leads to the common mischaracterizations. It's only if not agreeing if the disagreement is almost always couched in sly mischaracterization instead of open disagreement your point would hold, and that's expecting pretty bad behavior. I don't think that poorly of any poster on either side, here.

*Deleted by user*

lowkey13 said:

Just going to point something out-

If there are, let's just say .... two points of view.*

Click to expand...

Sure, but I am talking not so much about debating general preferences regarding cats or dogs, but the frustration of having to repeatedly explain what a cat is to a dog-owner who refuses to believe or mentally-engage with the fact that other pets behave in non-doglike ways. Sure overlap exists between these domesticated carnivores, but it's also important to recognize what those meaingful differences are. And this repeated inability to recognize this often leads to absurd sitatutions like dog-owners telling cat-owners that their is something wrong with their pets because the cat is not barking. Or telling cat-owners that cats have no need for their claws since their dogs can't climb trees.

lowkey13 said:

Maybe! Anything is possible.

On the other hand, what you term "common mischaracterizations" are what other people view as the reasons they may not like something.

Put another way, this is the same as any debate about preferences (from something as simple as "steak v. sushi" to as complicated as "my political party" v. "your political party"). It's not that there is a lack of understanding that's the problem; it's that people have expressed a preference for something, and then they chose to characterize the other side in a way that the other side views as a "common mischaracterization."

"Why are you eating that. It's just some raw fish and seaweed, man."

"That's a common mischaracterization. It's really...."

"Yeah, it's gross. Ima go to Texas Roadhouse.

People like what they like. Maybe they might change their preferences over time, maybe they will like both steak and sushi.

Instead of telling them that they're wrong, and they need to like other stuff and understand you better, take 'em to a sushi restaurant.

Click to expand...

Honestly, it's more like trying to talk about sushi to someone that just rephrases what you say to be about steak.

"Well, it is raw fish..."

"RAW BEEF?!?"

"No, it's fish, and..."

"I'd never eat raw beef. Have you tried to cook your sushi? Maybe a good medium well, with some loaded baked potatoes? That sounds like it would be better sushi that what you're talking about."

This is, quite often, what these discussions feel like to the "sushi" crowd. So, I respectfully disagree with you.

*Deleted by user*