Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Yesway Jose" data-source="post: 5638913" data-attributes="member: 6679265">Yes. But I'm not being conciliatory in the sense that I used to be against you and then retraced to meet you halfway. I am trying to meet halfway by insisting that semantics and attitudes are preventing two parallel opinions from happily co-existing. That, and the implication that I'd think that non-simulationism is not roleplaying, is what baffles me. To be totally honest, I don't care about how you play your game, thus I have no interest in characterising it for you. I may see you eating vanilla, and I think that I prefer chocolate, but that doesn't mean I would think for one second of taking your vanilla ice cream away from you or demanding why you don't like chocolate. Which, for me, is still semantics. Agreed, except when threads that should be about fun conversation devolve into the wrong kinds of arguments. To faciliate discussion and increase your enjoyment of such threads? Me too, but from the other perspective. The key, as I keep attempting (and I guess failing) to articulate, is that one person's impulse to be understood does not invalidate another's. It's basically regarding use of Author stance defined in the Big Model as "The person playing a character determines the character's decisions and actions based on the person's priorities, independently of the character's knowledge and perceptions. Author Stance may or may not include a retroactive "motivation" of the character to perform the actions. When it lacks this feature, it is called Pawn Stance". So a player applies a metagame-y mechanic, and then retroactively motivates the character so that the effect of the mechanic ends up being simulationist after all. Yes, exactly! I agree! To put it more succinctly than it deserves, I think the only difference is your vs mine subjective expectations, and this has been touched upon numerous times, but no bridge-building there for some reason? I acknowledge that you've repeatedly brought this up and I've repeatedly ignored it, mostly because I think it adds an extra layer of complexity. Discussions often are based on whether somebody can subjectively satisfactorily find an objective in-game reason for a mechanic that can be observed, learned or explored in the fiction. I emphasize "objective" as in there's one single in-game explanation for it (whereas the adequacy of the in-game explanation is subjective to the player). I find the Polymorph to be extra tricky, because while you insist that it was the objective in-game explanation, I perceive that it *could*, if it happened in my game or any other, be *subjective* to the paladin PC, and that since the polymorph spell would have ended anyway, that *not every player at the table* can be guaranteed to conclude which was true (raven queen ended the spell vs paladin thought the raven queen ended the spell and it would have ended anyway). Since it cannot be guaranteed which way every player at any one gaming table would approach that, I have studiously avoided the topic -- especially after it blew up out of proportion and became tangential to the thread topic. This deserves a more careful reading and articulated response then I'm able to provide at the moment. I'm not sure, though, how it relates to the core issue that what you think of as simulationist may or may not be what other people think is simulationist and that's OK.</blockquote>

Verification