Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9637095">I was trapped at the dealership All day yesterday with bad so-if so my post may have been more curt than intense, but what is alienating isn’t that you want to focus on what is said, what the incremental exchanges between players are. It is your assurance in your answers, and your insistence that you know what other people are doing. It is also the aggression of your arguments. I think these threads could actually bring more people to the style you are advocating for if you took a slightly different approachAs for obscurantism, people will use words like explore then describe what that entails. Exploration play has a robust dialogue around how to run effective exploration adventures and there is an arsenal of tools that have been developed. But we try to use plain language when possible, evocative language that helps paint a picture of the idea (you can reject living world as magical language but it gets the point across) and we aren’t overly focused on the exact flow of the conversation (I find that stifling personally). Doesn’t work for you that is fine.But I will point out I came into this thread mentioning an interest in the style of play you are advocating (I seven said I was thinking of running an adventure that played out like a Shaw brothers movie where the characters advanced in level during the adventure and was looking for ways to handle the dramatic twists). This would have been a good opportunity to sell me on one of the games or tools within a game you are so passionate about. But this style of discussion tends to drive people away. I might not adopt your way of analyzing systems or the language you use, but a tool is a tool and a system is a system. And I needed a method that handled the “it was X who killed your parents” in an interesting way and was open to just about anything that could be kludged to my RBRB system</blockquote>

Verification