Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9658759" data-attributes="member: 13383">This  mischaracterizes both the intent and content of what I wrote. I’ll break this down clearly, step by step:1. “Offhanded comments... I don’t think you even realize you make.”This is a mind reading fallacy, suggesting that myself and [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] are subconsciously demeaning other games without providing actual evidence. It’s not based on anything I explicitly said, but rather on a perceived tone or implication.It also serves to poison the well, framing our contributions as suspect before engaging with the content. Instead of dealing with the actual claims made, this line subtly undermines the speaker’s credibility by suggesting we’re unaware of our own biases. If there's a specific statement that seems problematic, it should be quoted and addressed directly, not vaguely alluded to.2. “Most RPGs aim to create and portray plausible, believable worlds…”This is a motte-and-bailey fallacy. I never claimed that other RPGs don’t aim to create believable worlds. What I did was describe the method and design structure used in my own campaigns (Living World sandbox) to support a feeling of realism. That’s a substantive distinction about process, not a denial that other games care about immersion or plausibility.This shift from a specific point (different structures lead to different expressions of realism) to a generalized platitude (“most games want to be believable”) avoids engaging with the core argument and instead reframes it into something trivially agreeable.3. “Perhaps you place that above any and all concerns…”This is a strawman argument. Nowhere did I claim or imply that realism is placed “above any and all concerns.” I stated that in my campaigns, one of the primary design goals is to make the world feel as though it exists independently of the players, i.e., a "real" place. That is a goal, not an exclusive obsession or universal prescription.This framing misrepresents my position to make it seem like I’m dogmatic, which invites the reader to dismiss the argument without considering its substance.4. “…but that doesn’t mean it’s a concern that only you strive for.”This is a false attribution. I did not claim exclusivity over the goal of realism or world believability. I drew a contrast in methods, how different systems achieve different effects. Blades in the Dark uses flashbacks, abstracted time, and shared narrative control to evoke a specific genre experience (e.g., heist fiction). My campaigns rely on a simulated, persistent world governed by in-world logic.Highlighting these differences is not a claim that only one approach values believability; it’s a way to explain how different games get to different outcomes. If we can’t talk about design trade-offs without someone interpreting that as a moral judgment, then we can't have a meaningful discussion about design and theory.Wrapping it upThis pattern of reframing and tone policing doesn’t move the conversation forward. If you disagree with my structural approach, then say so and explain why. But don’t recast my statements into exaggerated or emotionally charged interpretations I never offered.I’m happy to debate procedural structure, design goals, and playstyle differences all day long, but I expect the discussion to remain grounded in what’s actually said, not what’s inferred through rhetorical projection.</blockquote>

Verification