Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7101166" data-attributes="member: 16814">I dislike fisking, in general, as I find it impedes discussion and turns things into a point by point.  That said...1) the caveats weren't lampshading, but were meant to provide assurances that I actually wasn't trying to insult a playstyle.  I'm much more interested in frank discussion that takes the bad in with the good and recognizes the underlying values at play, which can be easily taken as trying to insult.b) Story Now vs Illusionsim:  you're absolutely right that those definitions were made to be antithetical.  That was part of my point, poorly made -- that despite this, there's still elements of Illusionism in Story Now games.  The DM has a wide lattitude to provide a story that can be moved to a point they want, for instance.  Examples would be introduction of fiction or framing in response to failures.  Yes, there's the idea that everything must be about the players, but it's fairly trivial to attach a preferred story element to a character's stated intents or beliefs or actions, especially if you do it beforehand.  There's also the Illusionism of soft-pedalling failures until the characters succeed.  But, the main thrust was that there's a very subtle from of Illusionism (as defined) throughout the entire concept because the DM uses their force, limited as it may be, to adapt whatever they introduce to be part of the story.  The skulker, as an example, was introduced by the DM, and then moved in the fiction to be relevant to the players, almost no matter what they players would have wanted otherwise.  No player said, "I want there to be a skulker", it was, as stated, introduced as framing -- a potential challenge.  Then it morphed to be in front of the characters as they did define what they cared about, until the skulker, now advisor to the Baron, was what they cared about.  This kind of thread can be followed in many story games (but not all, it's not guaranteed).That was my point.  And I also agree that Forge-speak is generally too loaded with smug to be of more than limited use.  It's custom built to define things not wanted as bad, and things wanted as good, so if you engage using the terms and their assigned definitions you're automatically adopting the good/bad assignments.  Makes it very hard to argue a point against while using the terminology.  I've adopted it here because I find it self-contradictory (mildly, at least) and because it's preferred by those with whom I'd like to discuss the point.</blockquote>

Verification