Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8941279" data-attributes="member: 71699">Which &quot;certain groups&quot; are you thinking of?My particular concern was that - provided I read it correctly - it is important for [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] that there beIn the past, I have argued that in its non-commital to principles, D&amp;D leaves the door open for a group to bring into their play the same principles as are put in writing in PbtA games. I have argued that the consequences-resolution and degrees-of-success rules in the DMG give mechanical support for that possible approach. Such technical arguments do not on surface make the acknowledgements sought. Whether I am right or wrong is of no concern here, the point is that in this case, the standards or considerations that I outline would apply to or be demanded of me.Sometimes technical arguments / critiques are caveated with words amounting to &quot;this doesn't empty your play of value, but...&quot; which can feel disingenous. Maybe that can be improved on by locating each argument in relation to norms or purposes? In my example, I would call out that normally I would acknowledge AW's distinctness of play, while in exploring these unusual possibilities I am here setting aside norms to see what might be revealed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8941279, member: 71699"] Which "certain groups" are you thinking of? My particular concern was that - provided I read it correctly - it is important for [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] that there be In the past, I have argued that in its non-commital to principles, D&D leaves the door open for a group to bring into their play the same principles as are put in writing in PbtA games. I have argued that the consequences-resolution and degrees-of-success rules in the DMG give mechanical support for that possible approach. Such technical arguments do not on surface make the acknowledgements sought. Whether I am right or wrong is of no concern here, the point is that in this case, the standards or considerations that I outline would apply to or be demanded of [I]me[/I]. Sometimes technical arguments / critiques are caveated with words amounting to "[I]this doesn't empty your play of value, but...[/I]" which can feel disingenous. Maybe that can be improved on by locating each argument in relation to norms or purposes? In my example, I would call out that [I]normally [/I]I would acknowledge AW's distinctness of play, while in exploring these unusual possibilities I am here setting aside norms to see what might be revealed. [/QUOTE]

Verification