Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 6872544" data-attributes="member: 16814">I do as well,&nbsp; but the story in a game is one crafted by all the players, and that means it had to have an agreed&nbsp; common ground to build on.&nbsp; That's usually the real world with some changes because it's the easiest to grasp.&nbsp; BI's&nbsp; stories, so far, all violate that common ground,&nbsp; which is fine in a novel where you can explain the differences clearly,&nbsp; but not so much in a game narrative without a lot of groundwork and buy in, or at a table more interested in improving stories rather than jointly constructed narratives.And, really, that's my problem with both your and BI's narratives: they demand that you and you alone have all the power&nbsp; in the narrative; that you do not share any space with the other players and of they intrude on yours it's their bad.&nbsp;You have a vivid imagination, and have repeatedly shown that one of your favorite uses for it is to imagine others in a bad light.&nbsp; What possible purpose, other than insult, would you have felt the need for the an?&nbsp; It doesn't move the conversation forward, it opens no new oaths, and it only insults, and does that wrongly&nbsp; (Frodo and Sam run into a patrol moving to the lines and have to pass a guard keep, which they only do by successfully disguising themselves).In the future, if you have a suspicion about my motives or my thoughts, try asking instead of assuming.&nbsp; You be less wrong and look like less of a jerk.No, it's wrong.&nbsp; As in, opposed to reality.&nbsp; Heavy cavalry is nearly nonfunctional in woods and at an extreme disadvantage against even light troops.&nbsp; You can postulate in the fiction why this set of heavy calvary was hyper effective instead of crippled in woods, but that didn't happen and would also significantly reduce the effect your lauding -- it would have been the right and expected tactical choice.&nbsp; I've no problem with the brain damaged general lucking into tactical genius, just that his tactical genius wasn't.Also, the brain damaged general being lucky at tactics due to being touched or whatever is perfectly fine and even entertaining, but it's hard to see how he wouldn't be crippled at any other intellectual pursuit, meaning he's not a 5 INT general genius but a 5 INT person who has some genius at generaling.Sent from my desire to irritate Mustrum</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 6872544, member: 16814"] I do as well, but the story in a game is one crafted by all the players, and that means it had to have an agreed common ground to build on. That's usually the real world with some changes because it's the easiest to grasp. BI's stories, so far, all violate that common ground, which is fine in a novel where you can explain the differences clearly, but not so much in a game narrative without a lot of groundwork and buy in, or at a table more interested in improving stories rather than jointly constructed narratives. And, really, that's my problem with both your and BI's narratives: they demand that you and you alone have all the power in the narrative; that you do not share any space with the other players and of they intrude on yours it's their bad. You have a vivid imagination, and have repeatedly shown that one of your favorite uses for it is to imagine others in a bad light. What possible purpose, other than insult, would you have felt the need for the an? It doesn't move the conversation forward, it opens no new oaths, and it only insults, and does that wrongly (Frodo and Sam run into a patrol moving to the lines and have to pass a guard keep, which they only do by successfully disguising themselves). In the future, if you have a suspicion about my motives or my thoughts, try asking instead of assuming. You be less wrong and look like less of a jerk. No, it's wrong. As in, opposed to reality. Heavy cavalry is nearly nonfunctional in woods and at an extreme disadvantage against even light troops. You can postulate in the fiction why this set of heavy calvary was hyper effective instead of crippled in woods, but that didn't happen and would also significantly reduce the effect your lauding -- it would have been the right and expected tactical choice. I've no problem with the brain damaged general lucking into tactical genius, just that his tactical genius wasn't. Also, the brain damaged general being lucky at tactics due to being touched or whatever is perfectly fine and even entertaining, but it's hard to see how he wouldn't be crippled at any other intellectual pursuit, meaning he's not a 5 INT general genius but a 5 INT person who has some genius at generaling. Sent from my desire to irritate Mustrum [/QUOTE]

Verification