Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Xetheral" data-source="post: 8223272" data-attributes="member: 6802765">So despite agreeing with each other about the role of improv at our own tables, I see the &quot;scope of play&quot; (just for consistency and continuity I'm going to keep using this terminology in the discussion, despite the flaws pointed out be [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]) as a choice. You and I choose to define what has been presented at the table as the dividing line between what is and is not part of the game, but that's not the only possible choice.Demonstrably, other posters in this thread instead choose to include material that has been created (and not yet shared) as part of the game. Alternatively, a table could go in the other direction and take a Tolkien-esque approach and define what has been presented in play as not necessarily the definitive statement on what is and is not &quot;real&quot; in the game world. I've heard of some tables running individual modules repeatedly (sometimes with the same characters) so presumably they don't take what happens at the table on any given runthrough as definitive even after it's been introduced.Given that I see the scope of play as a choice, I expect those options to be inconsistent with each other. Therefore I can't agree that it is meaningful that that the choice of a broader scope of play is &quot;observably inconsisten[t]&quot; with our narrower choice. I recognize that you don't see the scope of play as a choice at all, and that's probably why we're so far apart on how we view the disagreement in this thread, despite the similarities in how we view and use improv.As for asking people to put away surface arguments, I don't think that approach is likely to get very far when there is evident disagreement about what is and is not a surface argument. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Xetheral, post: 8223272, member: 6802765"] So despite agreeing with each other about the role of improv at our own tables, I see the "scope of play" (just for consistency and continuity I'm going to keep using this terminology in the discussion, despite the flaws pointed out be [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER]) as a choice. You and I choose to define what has been presented at the table as the dividing line between what is and is not part of the game, but that's not the only possible choice. Demonstrably, other posters in this thread instead choose to include material that has been created (and not yet shared) as part of the game. Alternatively, a table could go in the other direction and take a Tolkien-esque approach and define what has been presented in play as [I]not[/I] necessarily the definitive statement on what is and is not "real" in the game world. I've heard of some tables running individual modules repeatedly (sometimes with the same characters) so presumably they don't take what happens at the table on any given runthrough as definitive even after it's been introduced. Given that I see the scope of play as a choice, I [I]expect[/I] those options to be inconsistent with each other. Therefore I can't agree that it is meaningful that that the choice of a broader scope of play is "observably inconsisten[t]" with our narrower choice. I recognize that you don't see the scope of play as a choice at all, and that's probably why we're so far apart on how we view the disagreement in this thread, despite the similarities in how we view and use improv. As for asking people to put away surface arguments, I don't think that approach is likely to get very far when there is evident disagreement about what is and is not a surface argument. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification