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: 8138683"><p>I get what Pemerton is saying but I have already responded to that line of argument. You can't just project current concepts back onto gaming, taking edge cases and gray areas, and say therefore these are the norm of play. I never said there weren't exceptions or areas of the game where this stuff might lightly intrude. But  a player being able to declare a hill exists isn't lightly intruding (especially when the position seems to be this should be the standard way things are done). I am not saying it is bad, or less fun. But I think it is obvious to most people when we say traditional play, we mean play where the GM has the authority to author this stuff. Now we are simply invoking the term, traditional play, so we have a handy term for what we mean. I am not particularly interested in debating the nature of traditional play. This is the problem with debating posters like you and Pemerton, we enter discussion in good faith and it just feels like a rhetorical word game, where you dissect the language we use in order to take the ground out from under us. It never feels like an honest discussion. And it is always the same group of posters making the same points and fighting about the same style issues. I don't have any issue with your style. I have pointed to games I like that get into hat kind of style. But I can still make distinctions between ways of approaching the game. There is a difference between how I would normally play D&D and how Hillfolk handles things. And saying, well some of those things vaguely existed in D&D's past doesn't make my statement any less true (especially since it was clearly not the norm to run D&D in the style of something like Hillfolk). Maybe Pemerton was doing those things. Like I said many times, things weren't homogenous back then and I encountered all kinds of tables. But there were norms. There were things that would make people do a double take if you proposed them. For example I knew a guy who had a co-GM, and that is how he ran is campaigns. Nothing wrong with it all. His campaigns were great. But it wasn't the norm, and it certainly be something we would have told people before hand so they knew the game was going to be different. And it produced a very different feel in play. Some people loved it, but it wasn't for everyone (because it wasn't the experience they came to expect from the game)</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification