Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7564772" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm pretty sure the whole &quot;argument by degenerate example&quot; was covered awhile ago.&nbsp; Yes, ANY method becomes bad if allowed to degenerate, this is trivial.&nbsp; No one is suggesting you only say yes, so let's not use that as an example. Further, if you're playing where players only have a 1 in 10k random chance of advancing their goal, that's another pretty useless example of bad play.&nbsp; The discussion here is really that none of us are using realism to decide outcomes, we're using systems (from random to GM decides) to present a coherent fictional world in-line with the themes and tropes we'd like to play.&nbsp; &quot;Seems like a real world&quot; is a laudable trope, but it's not realism, and no method we have can make it so.&nbsp; What we have are various means of applying judgement that create believable outcomes, where &quot;believable&quot; is largely subjective based on group tastes.Why is this important?&nbsp; Well, it seems obvious, but what happens is that people start using terms to bolster their preferences and nake them sound as if they're more betterer.&nbsp; Like &quot;realism.&quot; Or, &quot;playing to find out what's in the GM's notes.&quot;&nbsp; It's all petty one-up-manship. If you take a different playstyle at it's best when discussing it, and are honest about the foibles of your own, most of this conversation wouldn't happen.&nbsp; It's okay that your play has potholes -- they all do.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7564772, member: 16814"] I'm pretty sure the whole "argument by degenerate example" was covered awhile ago. Yes, ANY method becomes bad if allowed to degenerate, this is trivial. No one is suggesting you only say yes, so let's not use that as an example. Further, if you're playing where players only have a 1 in 10k random chance of advancing their goal, that's another pretty useless example of bad play. The discussion here is really that none of us are using realism to decide outcomes, we're using systems (from random to GM decides) to present a coherent fictional world in-line with the themes and tropes we'd like to play. "Seems like a real world" is a laudable trope, but it's not realism, and no method we have can make it so. What we have are various means of applying judgement that create believable outcomes, where "believable" is largely subjective based on group tastes. Why is this important? Well, it seems obvious, but what happens is that people start using terms to bolster their preferences and nake them sound as if they're more betterer. Like "realism." Or, "playing to find out what's in the GM's notes." It's all petty one-up-manship. If you take a different playstyle at it's best when discussing it, and are honest about the foibles of your own, most of this conversation wouldn't happen. It's okay that your play has potholes -- they all do. [/QUOTE]

Verification