Search results

None of your posts are confusing in any way. I disagree with your usage of various terms, but I fully understand what you mean. I mean, from the early '90s up until 2008 or so, trad/neotrad immersive "I am my character" play was all I did. I'm in no way confused by what you're describing.

Being systematic is good. Saying "I'm describing these principles, because I think they'll make for a strong, distinctive play experience", like that blog post does, or the Principia Apocrypha, or Matt Finch's primer, is how you make a convincing argument in the TTRPG space. "I'm just...

You don't have to like it. But that dislike shouldn't prevent you from categorizing play in a way that includes things you don't like.

Shockingly, if you read the not-very-long blog posts, they explain why. And the definition comes from someone who is actively supporting the types of play you advocate for.

Because it should be self-evident that different games work differently? I didn't open the PDF for Brindlewood Bay and start thinking "Where are the feats? Where are the spells?" I didn't start playing Catan and think "Where is my token? Why am I rolling 2d6 and not moving my piece around...

Possibly because you all view things in similar contexts and have similar play backgrounds?

And if your core priority is "simulating real life" rather than "rolling when stakes are raised", it would make sense to do so. "Simulating real life" isn't the priority in this game.

Nobody is following you around and making these analyses. You're choosing to engage. And it absolutely is a good faith discussion. Someone posted links to a blog advocating for "blorb" play, which is basically a lot of what you're advocating for; highly prepped worlds that react to player...

I never said you lied. I'm just saying that if @pemerton's posts don't seem clear to you, that's a "you" thing, not an "unclear post" thing.

I'm saying "if you say X, it seems like you have blinders". It's not an accusation, it's a description of how words come across in their context. And look, there are the blinders! When you say "I see agency as meaning X only, instead of X+Y+Z", that looks like blinders, as opposed to just...

Since your play seems to operate under blorb-like principles, and you communicated to the player in the metagame that his choice would be an ineffectual play, I think this is perfectly fine DMing. If the player either choose not to believe you, or believed that expressing a part of his...

Yes. If you're describing RPG play in a more technical space like this thread, that's exactly how you should describe things. Because we're talking about real-world processes, you should explain things in real world terms. You should! The fictional space and play at the table are very...

Stating "you don't have as much agency as you might think you have" isn't diminishing your agency; it simply makes you feel as though your agency is being diminished because your internal framework as to how play works is being challenged. "Sandboxes have near-maximal agency within the...

I'll be honest, if you can't understand @pemerton's posts, that's a "you" thing. Everything in @pemerton's posts here I've seen is laid out logically. Plus, having threads that go on for thousands of posts with people getting more angry that @pemerton is essential a messageboard final boss...

Which is fine, but having perfect control over mental state doesn't seem to enhance immersion, like at all. It feels more like a focus on wish-fulfillment "I wish I was playing this game in a Star Trek holodeck" play rather than immersing myself in a realistic character. Which is fine if...

I also strive to complete all my tasks and be a respectable, reputable person at all times in real life. Spoiler alert: I am nowhere near 100% successful. :)

The GM deciding to give you a benny because of your good thespianism isn't agency.

I know, it's definitely not a great feature for a game that wants to exhibit verisimilitude. Having 100% control of a character's emotions and mental state is completely unrealistic (we certainly don't have that kind of agency in real life) and really is more like treating your character like a...

I don't agree with your experience, of course. I'm just pointing out that I have no desire to engage with it because we just had this discussion recently.

I think a lot of D&D groups DO do that; I simply haven't for the past 15 years or so. But D&D is also famously reticent about explaining clear play principles and procedures, as a result of trying to be broadly palatable to a wide audience. (A fairly conservative audience, to make a periodic...