hawkeyefan
Legend
I do not view this distinction as pedantry. The way we think and talk about these things matter. In the moment of play we can disclaim decision making and make decisions for our characters as if we were them. We can choose to advocate for them, but that does not absolve us from the responsibility of the real impact those decisions have on real players sitting at a real table playing a real game. In my preferred mode of play we follow the fiction where it leads, but we should be cognizant that we are making that choice and respond to player inquiries with empathy and compassion - not defensiveness. I was following the fiction - not I didn't do that.
Disclaiming decision making in the moment is one thing. Disclaiming responsibility for the decisions we make is another thing altogether.
I don't disagree with what you say above....I think what you've described is a thoughtful approach to play and to discussion of play.
But I don't think it applies to the specific example. I don't think that anyone should need to clarify that the "game world reacting to the players" actually means "the game world, as determined by the GM, reacting to the players". Pointing out that the game world, as a fictional construct, does not actually react to anyone.....what point does that serve?
I have to agree that pointing out such a distinction is pedantic, and distracts from the discussion rather than adds to it. Now, I could be wrong and perhaps there was a compelling reason for the distinction, but none was offered....and the original point being made was never directly addressed.
Last edited: