Search results

Touchy much? I never said anyone is childish except some hypothetical person who can't play with others. And I am going by a metric ton of experience here. You decide your character is Little Lord Smarty-pants, that's fine. Now the conflicts you will deal with are going to be framed around...

Well, I've seen a lot, and my sense of it is that if a player uses backstory authority to, say, grant their character power and influence, so what? Now their story is about that! Meanwhile, spotlight is a whole other thing. Part of the job of a GM, in most systems -both traditional and...

But who's doing that?

I'm actually happy with players creating backstory and whatnot dynamically during play in order to relate to stuff that is happening. That's awesome. Maybe it even helps them out sometimes in a fairly simple way. But given we're playing to make the game interesting and the PCs lives exciting...

AFAIK the psychic maelstrom ONLY effects things through the interpretation of the characters, as described by the players. While it doesn't belong to the players, they're the ones who actually describe it. The GM could then follow up on that and manifest it as an actual threat.

I disagree. Had the player declared that the PC do some different thing, then this roll would not have happened. It's entirely diegetic! That's the whole point! I think the actual reasons why some gamers dislike this kind of thing has much more to do with the fact that it tends to blur the...

It certainly seems inevitable that this is nearly always the case. I mean, why else would you DR? The alternative would be to imagine players spamming it around at random. It's additionally key to understand that PCs in a game like DW always have some definite intent! I'm sure we can imagine a...

I think 'quantum' is a usage that has commonly been used to refer to practices most people here don't approve of. In that sense it could be seen as, to me very mildly, disparaging. However, I don't think it serves any purpose to police something that trivial. I'm sure whichever poster introduced...

Well, lets put it this way. If one claims to be offended and demands that others change their behavior, one must be willing to do the same. If instead one dismisses such complaints then one is committing the same behavior which one accuses others. One might then fairly be considered...

No, a lot of it isn't disparaging at all Max, unless you find any analysis of game play disparaging to you. Basically what you are doing now is a move in a kind of censorship. And yes, I know, many truly reprehensible people start with this argument. I'm not interested in pushing it to justify...

The terminology policing goes FAR beyond questions of offense.

I would just say that learning and practicing equanimity is a primary indicator of maturity. I think that is a part of what Lewis meant. It's a central theme of Aurelius' Meditations.

Well, so can princesses! 😁 I think we agree in this area. I certainly wouldn't consider either term derogatory, at least not inherently. @JConstantine's CS Lewis quote is pretty spot on. If I was concerned with seeming childish I would certainly not play RPGs!

Isn't 'cops and robbers' equally gender charged? Just because you are used to certain phraseology and terms doesn't make them neutral.

Maybe. I think part of the issue is that these kinds of debate push people towards more and more absolutist definitions of things, where it's much more difficult to point to real world play and classify things definitively. I will say that I think 'full on' Narrativist play is very immediate...

Well, this is not really sufficient. Narrativist play is play that is focused on a premise. That premise has, or begets situations with, moral weight. The characters are fit to address this, have passion (it matters to them), something opposes them, and nobody has predecided the direction events...

OK, you got me. 15,000+ posts of a slew of trad GMs oozing 'I own this part of the game' and you post a quote from John Harper that talks about what the GM is 'in charge of', and my using the term 'owns' is gaslighting?! Look, I'm going to accept that you didn't use the word, I don't think...

A lot of stuff just doesn't seem to 'come off' in trad play. So, for instance, the highly technical Ocean's Eleven style of heist, where the players have to do all the planning and detailing of things based on a GM's presentation of a scenario. Problem number one is the sheer amount of detail...

And, just to point out one of the reasons why I favor this sort of 'consequence resolution' is that ACTUAL game situations are so threadbare when compared to real life. It is beyond any reason to imagine that a game would have detailed all the things that your scenario posits. That is, that...

Well, I think you could have pretty much any of the kinds of Apocalypse you speak of. I mean, maybe Humanity has a collective unconscious? There's a massive pandemic, and people get WEIRD! I'd be hesitant to spend a lot of time, personally, on trying to come up with a lot of setting logic for...