NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6780580" data-attributes="member: 177">The issue is in the "primarily".  That's still entirely a subjective thing.  You noted above that some things break you out of the role-playing mindset, but that is *you*, not all people. That leads to a bias in perception - people will generally weigh the things that jar them more heavily than other things.  The activity that leads you to feel you are "primarily" telling a story may still leave another person feeling they are "primarily" role-playing.   So, it is still boxing things by what you like and don't like.Statements of the form, "You must have a flaw in mental capacity or character to disagree with me," have no place in this discussion.  It is, honestly, a sly form of ad hominem - ascribing a fault to the speaker before they've even spoken so as to dismiss them.  It is also hyperbolic, and you have no factual basis for it - if anyone had doubts that this was about passing judgement, you have probably dispelled those doubts with this characterization.  I dispute it.  The rulebook must spend some extra effort on it, because the relevant mechanics are rather different from those of other games.  If we measure by page counts, most of the time spent in a D&D game is spent casting spells, specifically, because they take up the bulk of the PHB.  But, tell that to the person playing a Fighter!  There may be an objective measure of how much attention the rulebooks pays to it, but that's not the same as an objective measure of how much *play* focuses on it.  So, it still looks like a subjective issue at the root.I have to wonder how much time you two have spent reading the rulebooks, as opposed to actually giving the game a fair shake in play.  Because, from my experience, you are *VASTLY* overstating the weight of the storytelling and player's author-stance of the game in practice.  If the player has defined their Aspects along the lines of their character's experience or abilities (things like, "Championship Boxer") they don't generally have to shift into author-stance to make decisions.  The character knows they are a trained boxer, and so will tend to use boxing techniques.  When they want to hit someone extra-hard, they spend a Fate point to try to do so.  No author-stance needed.  No more dissociative than any other game that has resources to spend that aren't in-world resources.You generally only have to switch to author stance when you've defined your aspects in terms of role in the story, as opposed to role in the fictional world.  But, players who don't want to take such a stance generally won't take such Aspects anyway, so this isn't much of an issue.The player does have a non-character-mind choice when offered a compel.  However, unless you're in an adversarial relationship with your GM, there isn't much of a decision - just take the compel, because the Fate point is valuable, and the result is likely interesting.  It isn't something one needs to agonize over most of the time.As previously noted - it seems that what qualifies for one or the other is still subjective, for reasons already stated.And, let's remember that your "traditional" role playing game icon is... D&D.  That came from *wargaming* - where the primary decisions are not made from the individual unit's point of view, but from a commander's and game-player's points of view.  D&D, a game in which hordes of people make decisions based not on a character's mindset, but based on game statistics on a sheet that don't exist in-game in any concrete way - still a commander's stance, not an immersed one. So, the "traditional" game does not seem to be an icon of immersion to begin with.So, I will still accept, "I don't like it."  However, I reject the attempt to draw lines of genre between things that *just happen* to be the same as the lines between things you like and don't like.  The coincidence seems rather suspicious.</blockquote>

Verification