Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8138371">This seems really strange to me. I think part of it is I genuinely have trouble with your communication style. I really think we are talking past each other 80 percent of the time. Clearly to a lot of people on this thread, no matter how you justify it, this feels like the player exerting a power normally reserved for the GM, because they are literally shaping the world. Now you can say, they are just 'remembering what is there' in character. That doesn't change that this is a very different way of approach ing things than some of the other posters here have. In these conversations I feel I have been happy to acknowledge your style of play, and acknowledge the things you do differently. But when I and others try to draw distinctions we make it feels like you are saying to us 'you are wrong, there is no such distinction'. I mean I can tell you honestly If I asked my players at my table, "Tell me what is to the north of that swamp', they'd look at me funny, because that simply isn't how we play (and it isn't how we play in most of my games). I am not knocking this style at all. Like I said I really enjoyed Hillfolk, and one of the things it allowed you to do was fabricate setting details in dialogue during scenes (for instance I was playing a tribesmen trying to encourage war and expansion, and I remember inventing a whole group of people we were at war with to the north). I found that extremely immersive. It didn't interrupt my immersion one bit, but I do see the difference between that and a game where the GM decides who, if anyone, is to the north (and such a game seems much more standard to me than one like we had in Hillfolk). I liked that that occurred in the hill folk game,, but I would never then argue something like "but laws was just doing something that was always there in the hobby and no one batted an eye at it". Again, maybe it existed in places like gray areas in forms that didn't leap out at us. But I can say I never saw the stronghold mechanics as being anything like what Laws was talking about.Also I would not say that you are remembering anything in character in this case. You are inventing, then labeling it remembering. Nothing was actually recalled. If the GM had said to the player character earlier, there are hills to the north. Then the GM asked that player "What was to the north again?" and the player said "Hills". Fair enough, then you are remembering in character. But to me this feels like a post hoc justification for calling it an in character choice. That said, I am not saying that has to be counter to immersion or something. I am just saying it is clearly a case of the player having the power to shape a setting detail (and while you could describe that as being in character as remembering, you could just as easily label it the player putting hills there because he wants hills to exist to the north).</blockquote>

Verification