Search results

The context that he was discussing HIS play experience and how that motivated him to make his own game. He was not discussing YOUR play experience because it's not likely that he has, is or ever will experience YOUR play experience.

I was starting to have a crush on you and then you said that terrible terrible thing about pineapple. Now I am rethinking the nature of our whole relationship. ;)

I think what's being said is that death and failure are what make HIS play experience have meaning and if you remove those things for HIM then playing has no meaning any longer for HIM. Which in turn would mean that if anyone removes the part of the game that has meaning to YOU, then you are...

He's saying that removing meaning from play makes playing a waste of time. It doesn't seem like anyone read the whole thing, only the part they want to not like. Removing meaning from anything any one does makes it a waste of time. Even if what your doing doesn't mean anything to anyone else, it...

That would depend on what your definition of "whether" is. ;)

Back in my day, campaigns fizzled out at an alarming rate. As such from time to time it was not unusual to someone who was attached to a PC to port it over to the new campaign. Since we didn't really play in a "setting" it was easy. Yesterday you were in Mikes game, today you are in Steves...

I'm not sure what it is your argument is any longer; .....so i'll say good day to you. I hope you find the end result you seem to be after.

I accept your point of view on this matter. B-)

It's not uncommon for people to argue against their own argument the longer a thread lasts. It's the arguing they seem to be after more so than the argument. 🤷‍♂️

You have a tendency to truncate quotes. First we would have to have guidelines on what kind of stakes. Are we talking about PC death? Are we talking about PCs never failing any kind of check (including to hit rolls) ever? I'm confident that i could run a game with no stakes at all....it...

Even if someone insists that the way you are playing is wrong....it's ok, because they aren't arbiter of all that is. Someone said something that you disagree with and it got under your skin. That's fine. But now to insist that they clarify what they mean....that seems like you are telling...

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks"...Bill something. :rolleyes:

Don't i get to decide how to make my game interesting?

Isn't social media supposed to encourage a free exchange of ideas? Play the game the way you like. That's how you invalidate his thought on the issue.

When I said anti-story I meant people who think RPGs aren’t a story. Not that they are against stories. Poor choice of words to be sure.

It's improvisation to be sure. An exorcise in story telling. I'm also sure you can find people who would call it a game. As there are not really any rules or stated outcome (points gained in a time frame as an example) I wouldn't consider it a game as such. But now you're getting into...

I would say we are not calling a novel a game as the outcome (one of many) is already fixed regardless of what choice you make. In the context of an RPG the outcome isn't fixed unless that's the type of GM you are dealing with. That's a whole other conversation.

That's an interesting interpretation to be sure. I honestly mean that, i'm not attempting to be snarky. In my circles the furtherance of the story is the point of the game. That usually means PCs end up doing amazing things. It also sometimes means that terrible things happen to them...

I've nver once needed anyone to define a word used in these discussions; and i'm pretty dumb. People often ask for definitions to common words so that they can tie themselves into knots to get the words to mean what they want. It's tedious. Game on friends...game on.

It's not an ENworld thread until someone asks for the definition of something. 🤷‍♂️