Search results

Personally I've always carved out an exception for superhero settings in regards to that stuff. Whole different kind of play for me.

Yup. For me, session zero is when everyone at the table contributes to the setting, whether directly related to their PC or possibly otherwise. After that, the players are inhabiting their PCs and the GM is inhabiting everything else.

The title of the last episode is literally, "The Past is the Past".

Agreed. Whole different paradigm.

There's a big difference for me.I don't see RPGs as collaborative storytelling. It's (to me) a way to explore an imaginary world through an imaginary character, to act as they would and react as they would react, hopefully to predominantly interesting situations.

Agreed. I've always started my understanding of any RPG by focusing on the "G" first.

Agreed, which is why I also posted that that's not the best term presently either (although cops and robbers both can be any gender).

So you agree our opinions are on equal footing then?

I mean, I don't necessarily believe that the narrativist position believes this, but the implication really seems to come through in the language, and I think it's not hard to get that impression. Perhaps the fact that trad games came first (in general anyway) makes it seem like it was something...

To be fair, I do have a tendency to get defensive. Maybe you're right.

Not quite the same as what? I liked the careers in 1e and 2e.

Too bad. The career paths were what made role-playing in the Warhammer universe unique IMO.

That's the way I always played it. I had two 1e PCs turn into Chaos Spawn.

I have virtually the entire 1e and 2e lines already, and since the lore is far more important to me than the details of the system (1e and 2e played just fine to me), I see no reason to go beyond that. 3e especially had a ton of money-wasting bling from my point of view.

My kids (a son and a daughter) did both, but that doesn't mean the current terms don't have a potentially inflammatory meaning. Why do that when you don't have to? And I never said "cops and robbers" shouldn't be replaced, just that princess play probably isn't the least inflammatory substitute.

You may have something there (none of us are perfect), but the books used to refer to "cops & robbers" for stuff like that. Referring to it as "princess play" or "dollhouse" seems an unnecessary and, yes, clearly gender-tagged change. Why make a point out of using it? I'm sure there are other...

I was always fond of the Dustmen, but the closest to my personality is probably the Fraternity of Order.

Casual =/= not serious.

Does that make the terms used not derogatory?

Like I said, it's not about agreement, it's about tone. I just really prefer a more casual examination.