Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6746038" data-attributes="member: 42582">What my actual play looks like isn't secondary to me, though. It's pretty central.It's central in at least two ways. First, it's what I'm trying to improve, and many posters on ENworld offer useful advice and commentary.Second, it contributes to my understanding of what is possible in RPGing, in the simple sense that if I've done it, then I know it can be done.It's not my goal, as a poster, to articulate anyone else's experience of RPGing, except in the sense of contesting characterisations of what is essential to RPGing that are overly narrow. Some of that contestation takes the form of posting my own experience. Some of it takes the form of posting passages from rulebooks, Dragon magazines etc (eg in a recent paladin thread one poster asserted that alignment debates were a new thing; my response was to post some alignment debate articles from late 70s through mid 80s Dragon).I tend to think that, once you notice that these multiple ways of RPGing exist, about 90% of threads around &quot;problem players&quot;, alignment and paladins, &quot;dissociated mechanics&quot;, railroading and the like can be seen to have, at their base, differences of preference as to RPGing techniques. That's why I think it is helpful to identify and talk about different techniques. Instead of telling people that they're bad roleplayers, we can talk about different ways of achieving different RPG experiences.But you can notice these differences of technique, and talk meaningfully about them, without actually wanting to use them. I don't care if anyone takes the same approach as me, or not. I'm just inviting them to note that these other things exist, and in many cases have existed for as long as the hobby has been around (or nearly so).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6746038, member: 42582"] What my actual play looks like isn't secondary to me, though. It's pretty central. It's central in at least two ways. First, it's what I'm trying to improve, and many posters on ENworld offer useful advice and commentary. Second, it contributes to my understanding of what is possible in RPGing, in the simple sense that [I]if I've done it, then I know it can be done[/I]. It's not my goal, as a poster, to articulate anyone else's experience of RPGing, except in the sense of contesting characterisations of what is [I]essential[/I] to RPGing that are overly narrow. Some of that contestation takes the form of posting my own experience. Some of it takes the form of posting passages from rulebooks, Dragon magazines etc (eg in a recent paladin thread one poster asserted that alignment debates were a new thing; my response was to post some alignment debate articles from late 70s through mid 80s Dragon). I tend to think that, once you notice that these multiple ways of RPGing exist, about 90% of threads around "problem players", alignment and paladins, "dissociated mechanics", railroading and the like can be seen to have, at their base, differences of preference as to RPGing techniques. That's why I think it is helpful to identify and talk about different techniques. Instead of telling people that they're bad roleplayers, we can talk about different ways of achieving different RPG experiences. But you can notice these differences of technique, and talk meaningfully about them, without actually wanting to use them. I don't care if anyone takes the same approach as me, or not. I'm just inviting them to note that these other things exist, and in many cases have existed for as long as the hobby has been around (or nearly so). [/QUOTE]

Verification