Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AlViking" data-source="post: 9621819" data-attributes="member: 6906980">One last time.&nbsp; I'll just reiterate even though it doesn't really seem to matter what I say. On his posts on X Mearls states that &quot;the bigger the threat, the more meaning the game has to us ...&quot;.&nbsp; I disagree.&nbsp; If you go all out guns blazing all the time with big threats it's boring.&nbsp; There's so much more to it than go big or go home, there's so much more to making an interesting game than threats.&nbsp; Also? The only meaning to a game for a lot of people is that we're playing a game and it doesn't have to mean anything else.He then tries to elevate that statement continuing with &quot;...emotionally and spiritually&quot;.&nbsp; I'd probably let that go but then he concludes with &quot;Removing it from the game turns it into time-wasting slop.&quot;&nbsp; The combination there just comes off as preachy and condescending to me.In his posts on this thread he only talks about the adversarial role of a GM &quot;the GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players [goals]&quot; (bold added).&nbsp; I disagree because the adversarial role of a GM is only one part of a good game, whether it's how it's run or how it's designed.&nbsp; He made no other effort to clarify that what he's stated is only part of what a game should support, just doubled down on threat and opposing player goals.All of this in context of his ideas on gaming and what the rules of a game should support.&nbsp; That's it.&nbsp; I make no comment on him as a person, what he does, what he &quot;really&quot; means because we all know better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AlViking, post: 9621819, member: 6906980"] One last time. I'll just reiterate even though it doesn't really seem to matter what I say. On his posts on X Mearls states that "the bigger the threat, the more meaning the game has to us ...". I disagree. If you go all out guns blazing all the time with big threats it's boring. There's so much more to it than go big or go home, there's so much more to making an interesting game than threats. Also? The only meaning to a game for a lot of people is that we're playing a game and it doesn't have to mean anything else. He then tries to elevate that statement continuing with "...emotionally and spiritually". I'd probably let that go but then he concludes with "Removing it from the game turns it into time-wasting slop." The combination there just comes off as preachy and condescending to me. In his posts on this thread he only talks about the adversarial role of a GM "[B]the [/B]GM's goal should be defeating or foiling the players [goals]" (bold added). I disagree because the adversarial role of a GM is only one part of a good game, whether it's how it's run or how it's designed. He made no other effort to clarify that what he's stated is only part of what a game should support, just doubled down on threat and opposing player goals. All of this in context of his ideas on gaming and what the rules of a game should support. That's it. I make no comment on him as a person, what he does, what he "really" means because we all know better. [/QUOTE]

Verification