Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Guest 6801328" data-source="post: 6868952">Well, actually, I'll readily admit that.&nbsp; I'm afraid that if I'm restricted to &quot;commonsense&quot; definitions (which is what Maxperson has doggedly insisted is the only possible truth) then that eliminates all sorts of interesting narrative possibilities.&nbsp; I'd be equally afraid of restricting game choices to commonsense physics and biology.Ok, maybe I'm not *actually* afraid because I won't play with people who won't allow it.&nbsp; But you know what I mean.Mmmm...the reversal doesn't really work here, because in that case we're restricting latitude, which is sort of the opposite of trusting.&nbsp; Sort of like if I asked, &quot;Don't you trust other people enough to leave your door unlocked?&quot; and you replied, &quot;Well don't you trust them enough to lock it?&quot;&nbsp; Whuuuh....?Only &quot;treacherous&quot; if you think the players might abuse it.&nbsp; And they might.&nbsp; At which point I wouldn't play with them anymore.&nbsp; It seems more and more like this debate is really about trusting players.No, not even remotely, because the use is intentional and accurate, not a deliberate obfuscation.&nbsp; And I'm sure if you think about it you'll realize that's true.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Guest 6801328, post: 6868952"] Well, actually, I'll readily admit that. I'm afraid that if I'm restricted to "commonsense" definitions (which is what Maxperson has doggedly insisted is the only possible truth) then that eliminates all sorts of interesting narrative possibilities. I'd be equally afraid of restricting game choices to commonsense physics and biology. Ok, maybe I'm not *actually* afraid because I won't play with people who won't allow it. But you know what I mean. Mmmm...the reversal doesn't really work here, because in that case we're restricting latitude, which is sort of the opposite of trusting. Sort of like if I asked, "Don't you trust other people enough to leave your door unlocked?" and you replied, "Well don't you trust them enough to lock it?" Whuuuh....? Only "treacherous" if you think the players might abuse it. And they might. At which point I wouldn't play with them anymore. It seems more and more like this debate is really about trusting players. No, not even remotely, because the use is intentional and accurate, not a deliberate obfuscation. And I'm sure if you think about it you'll realize that's true. [/QUOTE]

Verification