Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8937075" data-attributes="member: 42582">Doesn't it? What about my Burning Wheel games that use the Greyhawk Maps, which show how all the different places are geographically located in relation to one another.What about 4e play that uses the default cosmology, and (in my case) the setting map on the inside gatefold of the module Night's Dark Terror?What about Prince Valiant and HeroWars, two pre-eminent "story now" games which use in the first instance Arthurian Britain, and in the second, Glorantha, as their settings?There are interesting things to be said about no-myth RPGing and degrees of low-myth. There are also interesting things to be said about the similarities between situation-driven and setting-driven Story Now play (Ron Edwards has said a lot of those things). There are also interesting things to be said about the various roles that pre-authored fiction can play in RPGing.But the blanket claims you're making seems to me just wrong. And obviously wrong.I find it particularly odd because you tend to make a big deal of the importance of people describing mainstream D&D play in ways that are recognisably accurate to you. But you seem pretty indifferent to describing other people's play in accurate terms at all. And it's not just the inconsistency - if you're not interested in accurate descriptions of (say) how some other poster plays BitD, or Burning Wheel, or whatever other non-D&D, non-D&D-adjacent system, I don't really see what you're trying to get out of the conversation.The notion of "trade offs" implies that something is lost and something is gained. As I posted in reply to [USER=71699]@clearstream[/USER], I take it that he is confining the description to his own experience. Because when I choose to play (say) Burning Wheel rather than (say) Rolemaster I am not trading anything off. RM has nothing to offer me that I don't get from BW.As far as your question "how does one supposed to have a conversation about playstyles with someone that doesn't see any good in their preferred playstyle?" my answer would be that it's the same as it is in any other field of criticism and inquiry. I have conversations with people all the time about methods of analysis, frameworks of evaluation and the like which I don't agree with. Being able to do that is a core part of my job.I'll give a concrete example: there is an approach to 2nd ed AD&D play, which was quite widespread in the 90s, in which the GM's job is to present setting, and situation, and narrate consequences (both good and bad, having some regard to what the players roll but certainly not fully constrained by that); and the players' job is to turn up to sessions, portray their PCs, and follow the GM's lead. And if those last two come into conflict, following the GM's lead is meant to take priority.I have played in these games, back when I had time to do so and I was playing with friends and I was able to take some pleasure in portraying my character. I have not played in a game like that ever since I commenced full time work and hence had my leisure time cut to evenings and weekends. And I don't expect that I ever will in the future. There are other RPGs where I can portray my character and impact the shared fiction in more significant ways. I will play them instead.The fact that I have no interest in playing that sort of 2nd ed AD&D game doesn't mean I can't analyse it. I mean, I just did!</blockquote>

Verification