Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9148785" data-attributes="member: 7040941">Im sure you have enforced that at your table given how super seriously you take your storygaming. Most people in the hobby recognize though that GMs have an outset means of overriding the game by being facilitators, and PBTAs tendency to share more of that same control with players means its more likely for rules to get dropped when they don't work. And it must be reiterated that there being a wrong way to play the game is not good design in games you're trying to assert are all about agency and being able to act freely. This is one of those brain worms I had to get over with my own game, fwiw. As much as Im consciously working to weave many concurrent gameplay loops together in a way thats seamless and non-abrasive, so that the experience I want to convey is fully achievable, I'm also consciously designing the game to not break down if some group decides some aspect of it isn't for them; which is going to happen given the sheer scope of the game now. I'm not going to be able to rely on telling people they're playing the game wrong, because I'm fundamentally not designing a game that requires a specific experience. PBTA games do require it however, and while Im sure you'll disagree, just remember what I just said about there being a wrong way to play. I think if I hadn't used that description as a negative (which as repeated, is not how its commonly invoked) that the people you refer to wouldn't have had anything to dispute. That is where the doubt comes from, as it seems driven more by the fact that I'm not praising the game for what it is and much less about the specific term I used. And given the discourse from them has invariably focused on disputing that term, when I personally am clearly much more interested in a direct design discussion, reinforces that doubt about what they actually care about. And as for what you linked, its pretty critical to note that actors stance isn't exclusive to storygames, and I would argue in particular that its implied opposite is far less a part of trad and other games than is assumed, and where it exists is rooted in the same thing Im essentially talking about when I talk about certain designs just being bad and needing to be fixed. (Of which I consider deleting the design to be a lesser solution)Acknowledging I was rude is meant to convey that I'm not just kneejerk reacting, but did not appreciate having to reread a post multiple times and eventually shove it in an LLM just so I could understand what could have been conveyed much more simply. Here's the thing about communication: anyone who knows what the words parse and inundated mean will understand what I said. They aren't uncommon words and they're easily understood contextually. I did not understand what you meant by saying coalitional, because the more common word for what you were trying to say is "collaborative", a word choice that would have been much more straightforward and made more immediate sense, even in the context of a big word salad.But individual word choice simply isn't the problem. Its masking a substantial paragraph with every other word being either non-standard, contextually incoherenr, or both. Ill let the robit take this one, as at this point Im tired of this contrived debatePretty important to clarify as well that when I position the writers room style as being a negative, its from the perspective of valuing systemic interaction and systemic emergence, which these games fundamentally aren't capable of providing for (as they're explicitly designed in a way that minimizes that possibility). Hence, why the bulk of what Ive been trying to talk about is not this continued naughty word over a common phrase, but actual game design and to what degree the design of these games actually contributes to their stated goals. I've already related that I don't think these games are good at doing what they set out to do on their own terms; they aren't good examples of what they try to be. My own preferences, philosophy, and thoughts on game design are meant to contextualize why Ive come to that conclusion. But, its gone ignored because apparently people really don't want to talk about any of that. But who boy do they want to drone on and on and on about nothing.</blockquote>

Verification