Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7464301" data-attributes="member: 5142">This is just false equivalence. It is fine and great to have a preferred taste for Actor stance. Where I take issue here is in the pragmatics of saying that you want 100 percent Actor stance to the exclusion of Author and Director. (Well that and the idea that in-character-speak roleplay should be preferred.) Though I disagree with Lanefan's position on in-character roleplay as the one-true-way, his position about attempting to maximize Actor stance did show practical awareness of the inherent impossibility of fully escaping other stances in play. You asked for advice, and you have received advice; however, the thread topic you opened for public discussion moved on to a variety of other topics. So on that front, I am sympathetic to your frustration that you are getting the full feedback you were hoping for in this thread, but divergence is often the nature of public forums. And apart from voicing frustration about how the thread is not going to plan, I have not seen too much effort to return to form. Is there something more in particular you would like to get back out of this thread? Desiring one type of game for yourself and your group is again fine, but believing that it should be the goal of all roleplay for everyone does cross that line, no? Is that not OneTrueWay? You mean like people who badmouth games with &quot;metagame mechanics&quot;? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f615.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":confused:" title="Confused&nbsp; &nbsp; :confused:"&nbsp; data-smilie="5"data-shortname=":confused:" /> And if you play in my campaign you can play your way, and I will not bounce you out of the group, unless you are an arse to others at the table about their preferred way of play as badwrongfun or inferiorfun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7464301, member: 5142"] This is just false equivalence. It is fine and great to have a preferred taste for Actor stance. Where I take issue here is in the pragmatics of saying that you want 100 percent Actor stance to the exclusion of Author and Director. (Well that and the idea that in-character-speak roleplay should be preferred.) Though I disagree with Lanefan's position on in-character roleplay as the one-true-way, his position about attempting to maximize Actor stance did show practical awareness of the inherent impossibility of fully escaping other stances in play. You asked for advice, and you have received advice; however, the thread topic you opened for public discussion moved on to a variety of other topics. So on that front, I am sympathetic to your frustration that you are getting the full feedback you were hoping for in this thread, but divergence is often the nature of public forums. And apart from voicing frustration about how the thread is not going to plan, I have not seen too much effort to return to form. Is there something more in particular you would like to get back out of this thread? Desiring one type of game for yourself and your group is again fine, but believing that it should be the goal of all roleplay for everyone does cross that line, no? Is that not OneTrueWay? You mean like people who badmouth games with "metagame mechanics"? :confused: And if you play in my campaign you can play your way, and I will not bounce you out of the group, unless you are an arse to others at the table about their preferred way of play as badwrongfun or inferiorfun. [/QUOTE]

Verification