And like I just said with robus, I am saying that this has failure modes.
No. Incorrect. Wrong. I didn't say that. You are missing the point, and thereby demonstrating my point in the process.
Nowhere in my point is anyone being a jerk. Nobody is being unreasonable. Nobody is acting with ill-intent. Get that idea out of your head, or we will talk past each other. They are just carrying on with play in the best way they can. They are coming at play, however, with different desires and different thoughts. Our failure to connect on this point is *exactly* the kind of failure that can hit gameplay, even when everyone is being reasonable. We simply have slightly different goals, expectations, mental patterns, and things going on in our heads, because we aren't a hivemind.
We repeatedly say that players must have consistency of rules and processes so they can make reasoned, informed decisions. They must have an understanding of the odds in order for them to propose approaches. But, that means they are basing their choices on *expectations* about how things will happen. There's nothing jerkish about that. Meanwhile, the GM is not a *slave* to consistency. They are not jerkish for deviating from it from time to time. But that means we will have occasions where the player and the GM are not in synch, and that's where we can get tripped up. The basic form of play needs an allowance for that.
The problem with your play loop, and it's idealized nature, is that the player and GM roles must be kept pure for it to function as described, and that never actually happens. To be realistic, it needs to include an optional negotiation sub-loop. Because real human social interaction always calls for bits of negotiation for consensus to form. This is where, "Yes, and..." lives, in this negotiation. Most of the time, the player will just accept the GM's proposals. But, we need a loop to build consensus when the player's not on board with the proposal, and the GM and player can come to some understanding or compromise.
Okay, so, your point is that players can't understand enough to make reasoned choices because the play loop is so fixed (who said this? Oh, no one, it's a strawman) that they can't ask questions and the DM will refuse to answer questions because, well, the play loop won't let them (again, strawman), but, nope, there aren't any jerks involved here.
This is even more hogwash. For one, you're only making this argument against goal and approach, when it's actually trivially true of ALL playstyles -- if you don't allow questions and create expectation mismatches, you will have problems. You've assumed that goal and approach is so locked in that this is more likely to happen than in other styles, when, in reality, the same types of decisions and fiat exists in other styles it just happens in a different place. Your argument is trivially true across all styles, but it's used as if it only applies to goal and approach or the play loop
that's in the PHB. It really appears to be a motte argument because it's so trivially true -- bad play causes bad outcomes -- who could argue it. But your use of this only against one set of play is telling that it's not an honest criticism, it's just the retreat point when pressed on the more expansive against arguments you've floated (the bailey arguments).
So, then, let me attack the motte -- this argument is trivial. It's true of all play everywhere. It addresses NO points made in this thread, and certainly not by anyone describing the PHB's play loop as the PHB presents it. Or by anyone advancing goal and approach, who, if you actually read their posts, pretty much universally expound on how important it is to be clear as to what's at stake and what's going on in the scene. So much so that many of us have had to defend the openness of our information presentation as giving too much away. And, we all are very open about how it's very important to resolve any confusion and not play gotcha over a mis-match, so, clearly, your argument above doesn't apply to anyone in this thread advancing goal and approach. Nor is it a more valid argument against goal and approach than against any other playstyle. To sum up, I have no idea who you think you're lecturing on this trivially obvious point, but it's clear that you're advancing it not as a generally applicable statement but as a specific argument against the PHB's play loop (and goal and approach, obliquely), which is ludicrous, incorrect, and bordering on intellectually dishonest.
There, now that the motte is thoroughly dismantled, and we can safely discard this trivial argument as general and obvious and not specially more likely when using the PHB play loop than other loops, or in goal and approach as a style of using the PHB play loop, perhaps you'd like to reposition?
Again, nothing in the above in meant nor should be taken to imply that there's a better way to play. There
is a better way to play, but everyone needs to find their own.
) incompetent or unreasonable?
