Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7557288" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>He very well might. Like I said, his style seems to meet a need that is out there. But what I don't think he, or you, realize, is by forcing people to defend their preferences, by casting it in a light where his style is always the most favorably described (in virtually everything thread his approach is the one that maximizes whatever ideal of play is being floated, and the style he doesn't like is the one that minimizes it---for example the player agency and freedom thread), he is ensuring people dig their heels into the ground and defend every inch of rhetorical space he lays down. Someone who might have been open to trying one of his ideas, suddenly sees using his ideas as the antithesis of their preferred play style because he has framed the conversation that way. It becomes an all or nothing proposition because in order to defend their playstyle, they are being pushed to attack his. But most people and most groups are more complicated than that. Few playgroups adhere to a platonic ideal of play style that you see so often online. I am sure there are plenty of groups who might be traditional or run sandbox for instance, who would be open to using some of what he is suggesting as occasional tools. But they are not going to throw out the sandbox or the traditional role of the GM the majority of the time. The conversation creates a sense of false choice, where there can be only one way that is good and wholesome, and the other way is 'degenerate', 'mother may I', etc.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 7557288, member: 85555"] He very well might. Like I said, his style seems to meet a need that is out there. But what I don't think he, or you, realize, is by forcing people to defend their preferences, by casting it in a light where his style is always the most favorably described (in virtually everything thread his approach is the one that maximizes whatever ideal of play is being floated, and the style he doesn't like is the one that minimizes it---for example the player agency and freedom thread), he is ensuring people dig their heels into the ground and defend every inch of rhetorical space he lays down. Someone who might have been open to trying one of his ideas, suddenly sees using his ideas as the antithesis of their preferred play style because he has framed the conversation that way. It becomes an all or nothing proposition because in order to defend their playstyle, they are being pushed to attack his. But most people and most groups are more complicated than that. Few playgroups adhere to a platonic ideal of play style that you see so often online. I am sure there are plenty of groups who might be traditional or run sandbox for instance, who would be open to using some of what he is suggesting as occasional tools. But they are not going to throw out the sandbox or the traditional role of the GM the majority of the time. The conversation creates a sense of false choice, where there can be only one way that is good and wholesome, and the other way is 'degenerate', 'mother may I', etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification