Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8293344" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I’m just going to say this and people can respond at their discretion (or ignore it).Some of what I’m seeing feels like a realized or unrealized proxy war for the Forge’s position of:Two play agendas simultaneously lead to incoherent play. Therefore you can’t ACTUALLY have Narrativism and Gamism coherently designed into one system (such that play broadly and decision-points specifically cannot be an expression of both agendas).Is that what is happening here (again...accidental or purposeful)? As most know, I agree with a considerable chunk of analysis from the Forge, but (a) I don’t agree with that particular position, (b) I believe Forge commenters are more diverse on that position than Ron was (and even he was somewhat muted it seemed), and (c) it’s empirically not true because there are designs out there that emphatically disprove (even if you don’t believe 4E or DW fit the bill) that challenge-based play and theme/premise-based play can be robustly married (Torchbearer, Strike, Blades in the Dark).</blockquote>