Beginning to Doubt That RPG Play Can Be Substantively "Character-Driven"

[hawkeyefan]

If I had to guess, I’d say that the dismissal of the meta topic was seen as a dismissal of the entire post?

It certainly wasn’t my take away.

 

[Manbearcat]

And as a quick aside, it seems that virtually everyone disagrees with my take on continuum vs binary wrt Force and possibly other elements of what I’m saying about Force, so the challenge that lowkey put forth in that post about that seems like a good one (given that context), so I’m glad to have that challenge (to force, lol?, me to crystallize my thinking, and perhaps revise events of it; though I’m not there yet).

Finally, I’d appreciate it if people who don’t like me or generally disagree with me to weigh in on the subject above, even if just through PM.

I’m out for awhile.

 

[Umbran]

One addendum right quick:

First PLEASE DON'T GET HUNG UP ON THE CONNOTATIONS OF THE WORD CHEATING.

I'm going to chime in on this. The negative aspects of "cheating" are not so much connotation as denotation. The dishonesty and breaking of trust is baked into common use. If you don't intend them, don't use that word.

And if you do intend them, you better be ready to be called out for insulting someone.

 

[Umbran]

If I had to guess, I’d say that the dismissal of the meta topic was seen as a dismissal of the entire post?

It does kind of read that way.

And, to be honest, how people use terms, or resist changes in use, IS a problem. Frequently. Any time you see (or are involved in) an argument over terminology, it is likely useful to step back and think about what everyone is really arguing about. Because the terminology is a means to an end, an argument over terminology is going to be a proxy fight over something else.

And dismissing that is basically saying, 'I don't really care what anyone else is saying - I just want to say what I am saying." And that's not discussion.

Lowkey's problem was in going snarky, instead of just saying, "Dude, this is dismissive of X, Y, and Z."

 

[Umbran]

It’s more a question of whether GM Force can be used in a principled manner.

Define "principled". Whose principles?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[hawkeyefan]

Define "principled". Whose principles?

I don’t think there would be an agreed upon standard, so it would have to come down to what the specific group wants and expects.

So for Manbearcat, no amount of force would be acceptable. For my group of players, some would be, but with the expectation that it not be applied in a way that negated some result of player choice. Still others would expect force as part and parcel of the gaming experience.

The middle ground is going to be pretty vague and hard to gauge unless the participants all discuss it, or as @prabe mentioned, if it’s all kind of worked out as they play.

So in this sense, I’d say principled use would imply that the expectations of all participants have been considered and the GM proceeds accordingly.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And dismissing that is basically saying, 'I don't really care what anyone else is saying - I just want to say what I am saying." And that's not discussion.

I don’t think that was at all the tone of that post. It was more “I’m not going to defend my opinions against baseless accusations of attributing other playstyles as badwrongfun, but instead I’m going to focus on what I think is the relevant topic”.

Basically, “I’d prefer to have a conversation about gaming techniques rather than a conversation about how to converse about gaming techniques”.

It seemed to me that it was the use of the term “degenerate”. I took lowkey’s exception to the term being that it implied a certain playstyle was a degenerate playstyle. I took Manbearcat’s reply to clarify that what he meant was “a desired mode of play that has somehow become an undesired mode of play”.

I think that was a clarified well. The point was also made that such clarification shouldn’t be needed as often as it seems to be around here, and I feel like that seems to be what caused the confusion.

But a dismissal of the original post? Not at all.

 

[darkbard]

hawkeyefan's take lines up pretty neatly with my own. This doesn't need to be about drawing up sides, of course; it does, however, reveal how different folks can have such widely divergent takes when reading the same thing. <shrug> Maybe we can all try to focus on engaging the substance of discussions and not look to take umbrage* so quickly?

*No offense, Umbran. ;^)

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*