Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 9597800" data-attributes="member: 2205">I've decided, I think, that the great dividing line between gamers on matters of taste is structure.&nbsp; On one pole, we have folks who are fundamentally skeptical of GMs and their authority.&nbsp; They don't trust it, either because they don't trust the GM to treat them fairly, or because they just think he'll make a mistake, so they require, by taste, a lot of structure and circumspection of the GM's ability to engage in inadvertent wrongfun, or whatever.&nbsp; Rules light vs crunchy is really a proxy for this preference; or at least it's the most normal root cause of a preference for rules crunch vs rules light. I'm sure some people just really enjoy the rules for their own sake. But mostly, it's about making sure that they can get a more predictable, constant experience out of people that they don't trust to give it to them otherwise.I think that the chasm that divides these two poles around which gamers cluster is so vast and so deep that we literally don't understand each other.&nbsp; I read debates on this issue and I don't know what in the world they're even talking about.&nbsp; I'm sure it makes sense to them, but to me it reads like a gigantic non sequitur. To me; they're not even responding to what I said when we're &quot;arguing&quot; about the merits of one approach vs. the other.&nbsp; We're talking completely past each other with no mutual comprehension at all. The words look like English words, but they make no sense.&nbsp; For all of their comprehensibility, they might as well be written in Medieval Old Tibetan.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 9597800, member: 2205"] I've decided, I think, that the great dividing line between gamers on matters of taste is structure. On one pole, we have folks who are fundamentally skeptical of GMs and their authority. They don't trust it, either because they don't trust the GM to treat them fairly, or because they just think he'll make a mistake, so they require, by taste, a lot of structure and circumspection of the GM's ability to engage in inadvertent wrongfun, or whatever. Rules light vs crunchy is really a proxy for this preference; or at least it's the most normal root cause of a preference for rules crunch vs rules light. I'm sure some people just really enjoy the rules for their own sake. But mostly, it's about making sure that they can get a more predictable, constant experience out of people that they don't trust to give it to them otherwise. I think that the chasm that divides these two poles around which gamers cluster is so vast and so deep that we literally don't understand each other. I read debates on this issue and I don't know what in the world they're even talking about. I'm sure it makes sense to them, but to me it reads like a gigantic non sequitur. To me; they're not even responding to what I said when we're "arguing" about the merits of one approach vs. the other. We're talking completely past each other with no mutual comprehension at all. The words look like English words, but they make no sense. For all of their comprehensibility, they might as well be written in Medieval Old Tibetan. [/QUOTE]

Verification