Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9110477" data-attributes="member: 70468">I read the article. I’m not a fan of it for a few reasons. I don’t like the “tell me a story” style of argument. I find it obfuscatory and tedious at times. That’s a me problem though. Regarding the article itself, it falls into the trap of advancing a particular view of RPGs (that they’re about telling stories) to bolster its argument for having illusionism as a tool in your toolbox. That stuck out to me in a few places:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Early in the article, it makes a comparison to poor plays in games. It suggests that using a broken combo is problematic, but that’s not necessarily the case. It’s situational. If you’re playing a casual game with players of mixed skill levels, it’s probably not going to be fun for everyone to do that. In a competitive environment? Yeah, you probably should not only be using that combo but also be prepared to counter it (since there are rarely true “I win” buttons).</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The discussion of immersion seemed problematic. I think those who value immersion, especially deep in-character immersion, would take issue with the distinction made that immersion is something the audience experiences and that play involves a spectrum of between audience and authorship. In that orientation, play is about being your character and experiencing the world as your character. The idea of authorship is anathema to that approach.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The final section acknowledges other ways of play, but it implies they may result in poor experiences (and suggests they may even drive people away from RPGs when they experience them). That seems rather uncharitable. It does acknowledge that are styles of play incompatible with illusionism (such as those involving totally transparent collaboration) but it follows that with an implication that such styles are less inclusive of different players.</li> </ul>I don’t think this is a conscious or intentional attempt to disparage other styles of play, but I wish it hadn’t done that.Setting all that aside, it makes sense to have illusionism as a tool in your toolbox when it’s appropriate for the game you’re playing. The extension of the definition provided at the start of the article to all players (not just the GM) is also an interesting idea. I think it’s unfortunate that it’s so difficult to discuss different ways of RPGing because certain ideas and approaches are internalized as The Way It’s Done™ rather than being a way of playing a particular game (or family of games).</blockquote>

Verification