Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AnotherGuy" data-source="post: 9664579" data-attributes="member: 7029930">I'd say out of the two, your monthly campaign comes closer to how I run things for my bi-weekly game, with differences of course.I agree with your this far.Although it is true I have not read enough of the exchanges (likely less than what I should have), but I think highlighting internal consistency &amp; plausibility etc is not what should be the centre of your (you and his) discussion.I think that is where things get caught in the cross-hairs.And the reason for this is that then it seems to be a contest of who has the most plausible or consistent campaign which it should not be.See below.Ok, how is the bolded for emphasis accomplished in your campaign?I think the core disagreement (willing to be corrected) is this appeal to internal consistency or plausibility. This isn't where you two differ I feel.You see, both of you can frame the exact same scenario but how you adjudicate the player's declarations and how that plays out (consequences etc) may reflect the difference in techniques/approaches, but both of you would create a plausible and internally consistent storyline. That is why I said upthread this should not be the focus.I'm not sure if I'm being clear enough in this regard.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AnotherGuy, post: 9664579, member: 7029930"] I'd say out of the two, your monthly campaign comes closer to how I run things for my bi-weekly game, with differences of course. I agree with your this far. Although it is true I have not read enough of the exchanges (likely less than what I should have), but I think highlighting internal consistency & plausibility etc is not what should be the centre of your (you and his) discussion. I think that is where things get caught in the cross-hairs. And the reason for this is that then it seems to be a contest of who has the most plausible or consistent campaign which it should not be. See below. Ok, how is the bolded for emphasis accomplished in your campaign? I think the core disagreement (willing to be corrected) is this appeal to internal consistency or plausibility. This isn't where you two differ I feel. You see, both of you can frame the exact same scenario but how you adjudicate the player's declarations and how that plays out (consequences etc) may reflect the difference in techniques/approaches, but both of you would create a plausible and internally consistent storyline. That is why I said upthread this should not be the focus. I'm not sure if I'm being clear enough in this regard. [/QUOTE]

Verification