Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JamesonCourage" data-source="post: 5958692" data-attributes="member: 6668292">I called you out for encouraging his disparaging of a different play style, when he described a style he didn't enjoy as "a world in which such a story might, possibly happen, once in a very great while (but probably never to my character)." I said that I thought that description was misleading and condescending, went on to express why I thought it was (it wasn't true in my experience), and said I was "sorry to see that you've encouraged it, pemerton."I didn't call out your preferences on narrative gaming, your thoughts on Forge-style narrative play with 4e, or the like. I then went on to discuss player control over an "interesting" story with Tony (where he neatly cleared up my first disagreement with him), and then you popped in again during my talk with Tony on player control to talk about Forge-style narrativist play in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5957443-post115.html" target="_blank">Post 115</a>, where you quoted once from my original disagreement with Tony, and once from my reply to Tony, not to you. The bulk of my reply in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5957450-post118.html" target="_blank">Post 118</a> was in response to your reply to my post to Tony. You proceeded to reply to post 118 in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5958548-post136.html" target="_blank">Post 136</a>, where you only quoted from the bulk of my reply.So, the order went:1) Tony's original post.2) Me replying to Tony, and calling you out.3) Tony replying to me.4) Me replying to Tony.5) You replying to my (2 -no Forge discussion), and to my (4 -where you introduced a Forge discussion).6) I replied to your (5), on the topic of (2) and (4).7) You replied to my (6) about the subject of (2 -no Forge discussion) only, which was my reply to Tony. It only referenced by reply about (2 -no Forge discussion), which wasn't talking about the Forge. It didn't involve your (4 -where you introduced a Forge discussion), which did reference the Forge.(8) I'm guessing that in (7), you were commenting on the topic of (2) and (4), where I was only replying to the topic of (2). We were apparently talking past one another, and I tried saying that in my last post.As I said in <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/5958580-post139.html" target="_blank">Post 139</a>, "So... okay, you're talking about that. I'm not. I'd rather not try continue a discussion on a topic when the other person isn't engaging it (and I assume you feel the same way)." I feel the same way now about it, really.That's not what he said when I called you out on it (and all you said was "this is an excellent line!" in reply to his comment "a world in which such a story might, possibly happen, once in a very great while [but probably never to my character]" to describe a style he didn't care for). Then, later (in one of the posts I linked), you jumped back into the conversation with me and Tony, and began talking about Forge-narrativist play, when I wasn't, and the conversation drifted back anyways.I'm not trying to take your experiences away, or invalidate them, or say what you're saying isn't true. I'm saying I'm not participating in this part of the debate, and so I won't reply if you bring it back up with me again. I'll gladly do it some other time, but a Forge-focused sidetrack doesn't appeal to me on this topic, when I felt I made some headway earlier, and probably won't on your topic. I like productive conversation, and I don't feel like I can be productive on this front (in this thread, at least). If you wish to reply to this, you can, and you'll have the last word on it. As always, play what you like <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification