Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4041300" data-attributes="member: 4937">No, of course not.&nbsp; If you ever had any that did, you would have drove them away long before now. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />Sure, I've done that.&nbsp; I've seen it.&nbsp; I've even seen players that lean gamist do it, for a combination of reasons, some narrativist and some involving challenging themselves.&nbsp; But I've rarely met pure narrativist players either.&nbsp; I was being somewhat cynical in describing a player's internal thought processes, but I wasn't being completely cynical.&nbsp; And I have met players, some of them good roleplayers, who did think _exactly_ like that.Alot of the recent confusion about my point stems from this misunderstanding you are demonstrating here.&nbsp; I think 'not in the rules' is a very different situation than 'contravenes an established rule'.&nbsp; The rules aren't complete and never can be, but once you've established precedents you should tend to stick to them.Errr... no.&nbsp; Even your earlier claims don't go so far.&nbsp; Perhaps you meant to add a qualifier, like 'fully'?&nbsp; If not, you can say that, but if you literally meant it, then it would be the same as not having rules... and I'm not even sure that's humanly possible.&nbsp; Like it or not, the rules do describe the world.&nbsp; The PC does something, and the world reacts accord to the rules.&nbsp; That's a description.&nbsp; I don't think you have to discard a system entirely if it has wierd edge cases you don't like.&nbsp; No one is required to create a 'perfect system' before they sit down to play.&nbsp; But I do think you should be conscious of the potential products of the system that you know or at odds with the setting you want to create and which you won't be able to live with and adjust the game rules accordingly, particularly before they are used to create precedents you don't want to honor.&nbsp; If you want certain concrete things, knights that break thier necks, 'zero' intelligence morons, babies that can't throw footballs, whatever, and you need these things, then you should adjust the rules accordingly.&nbsp; Not caring about the contridictions is very different than them not being there.&nbsp; If you don't care that the system doesn't support the setting, that doesn't mean that its going to support the setting.&nbsp; Sure, you can play through problems.&nbsp; That doesn't mean that they aren't problems.Anyway, we seem to have reached a point where we are going, &quot;Is too!&quot;, &quot;No, it isn't!&quot; and not saying anything new.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4041300, member: 4937"] No, of course not. If you ever had any that did, you would have drove them away long before now. :D Sure, I've done that. I've seen it. I've even seen players that lean gamist do it, for a combination of reasons, some narrativist and some involving challenging themselves. But I've rarely met pure narrativist players either. I was being somewhat cynical in describing a player's internal thought processes, but I wasn't being completely cynical. And I have met players, some of them good roleplayers, who did think _exactly_ like that. Alot of the recent confusion about my point stems from this misunderstanding you are demonstrating here. I think 'not in the rules' is a very different situation than 'contravenes an established rule'. The rules aren't complete and never can be, but once you've established precedents you should tend to stick to them. Errr... no. Even your earlier claims don't go so far. Perhaps you meant to add a qualifier, like 'fully'? If not, you can say that, but if you literally meant it, then it would be the same as not having rules... and I'm not even sure that's humanly possible. Like it or not, the rules do describe the world. The PC does something, and the world reacts accord to the rules. That's a description. I don't think you have to discard a system entirely if it has wierd edge cases you don't like. No one is required to create a 'perfect system' before they sit down to play. But I do think you should be conscious of the potential products of the system that you know or at odds with the setting you want to create and which you won't be able to live with and adjust the game rules accordingly, particularly before they are used to create precedents you don't want to honor. If you want certain concrete things, knights that break thier necks, 'zero' intelligence morons, babies that can't throw footballs, whatever, and you need these things, then you should adjust the rules accordingly. Not caring about the contridictions is very different than them not being there. If you don't care that the system doesn't support the setting, that doesn't mean that its going to support the setting. Sure, you can play through problems. That doesn't mean that they aren't problems. Anyway, we seem to have reached a point where we are going, "Is too!", "No, it isn't!" and not saying anything new. [/QUOTE]

Verification