Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7625598" data-attributes="member: 16814">Sorry, but how is this a defense against mischaracterizing a playstyle? I mean, if this is generally applicable, all manner of things can be said to other people while avoiding the actual content being dismissive if others (and incorrect).[Quite]So, really, you are 100% dead wrong - I am having a discussion with someone that seems to me 100% grounded in our play experiences.</blockquote>I don't doubt you have play experiences.&nbsp; You don't have play experiences using goal and approach constructively, though, yet you're making claims against that method.&nbsp; I can say thus because there are criticisms you can make, but they aren't the one your naking.&nbsp; You've subbed in bad DMs, pixel bitching, and degenerate play and are criticizing that but calling it goal and approach.&nbsp; If anyone is wrong here, it's your assumptions.&nbsp; Which have been directly refuted already in this thread.&nbsp; Those refutations getting no response until you found another poster to let you reiterate your refuted statements and claim it's a different conversation.Is it as rude as you blatant mischaracterizations of my playstyle?&nbsp; Your specific assumptions have already been addressed by more than me, yet you repeated them.&nbsp; Now you're setting up using the mod hat to shut down conversation because I point out your bad assumptions again.&nbsp; Seen it before.Here's the your core oroblem assumption:That you need to have any expertuse in the subject to properly form an approach.&nbsp; This is false because the ask is for what your character does in the fiction, not a real procedure.&nbsp; &quot;I recall my training&quot; is usually sufficient for the OP, although what training would be relevant.[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7625598, member: 16814"] Sorry, but how is this a defense against mischaracterizing a playstyle? I mean, if this is generally applicable, all manner of things can be said to other people while avoiding the actual content being dismissive if others (and incorrect). [Quite] So, really, you are 100% dead wrong - I am having a discussion with someone that seems to me 100% grounded in our play experiences. [/quote] I don't doubt you have play experiences. You don't have play experiences using goal and approach constructively, though, yet you're making claims against that method. I can say thus because there are criticisms you can make, but they aren't the one your naking. You've subbed in bad DMs, pixel bitching, and degenerate play and are criticizing that but calling it goal and approach. If anyone is wrong here, it's your assumptions. Which have been directly refuted already in this thread. Those refutations getting no response until you found another poster to let you reiterate your refuted statements and claim it's a different conversation. Is it as rude as you blatant mischaracterizations of my playstyle? Your specific assumptions have already been addressed by more than me, yet you repeated them. Now you're setting up using the mod hat to shut down conversation because I point out your bad assumptions again. Seen it before. Here's the your core oroblem assumption: That you need to have any expertuse in the subject to properly form an approach. This is false because the ask is for what your character does in the fiction, not a real procedure. "I recall my training" is usually sufficient for the OP, although what training would be relevant. [/QUOTE]

Verification