NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 5638299" data-attributes="member: 54877">I like the analogy, but you didn't take it to its logical conclusion. TA is the vegan with a long argument explaining why meat isn't food because of some inherent property in it. When non-vegans quite naturally point out all kinds of objections to this (some people like it as food, it has certain food values, etc.), the response is that none of those matter to vegans. They may not matter enough to vegans to get them to try it. That's their choice. They should matter enough to back away from "not food" to "food I don't like".  Once you get that resolved, you can talk about why you don't like the food. So far, no one in prior arguments or in the nearly 1,000 in this topic has been able to demonstrate a why they don't like it that is an inherent property in the thing itself. No one. Everyone that thinks they have, has pulled some version of TA's tricks, whether consciously or not. One of the more common is to keep trying to go via the backdoor into the assumption that "simulation == roleplay".  This is why, when Pemerton, Wrecan, and several others of us have freely and even gleefully conceded that 4E is not particularly suited to a simulation focus, some of you keep jumping on that as if it proved your point. Really, I think by now, that if you really want to continue down this line, you need to develop a straight-forward argument as to why you think "simulation == roleplay" and quit trying to simple assert it or sneak it in as an assumption. Good luck with that! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> Now on the other hand, given the tone of the preceding, if the confusion about simulations relation to roleplay is due to lack of experience with 4E or even more narrative examples--perhaps thinking the only other option to "roleplay" is a rather tactical, board-gamish which you have dismissed in the back of your mind as gussied up, second class hack and slash--then I humbly suggest that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, and really need to get some wider experience with the options in roleplay before you presume to tell others what is inherent in a system that they play and that you do not. In other lines of inquiry, people doing that would be laughed out of the room. Wrecan's logic on these recent points is correct.  If you've missed why, then you've missed it.</blockquote>

Verification