Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SableWyvern" data-source="post: 9671013" data-attributes="member: 1008">There is nothing in the post you were quoting that said &quot;interesting&quot; does not or cannot come into play. [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] talks about using realism as a guideline and says nothing about how &quot;interesting&quot; is (or is not) factored in.If it was said by someone else or in a different post, at a different time, I can't be expected to assume that that was what you were responding to, because it's not what you were quoting.Edit: actually, I see he mentions using &quot;realism&quot; instead of &quot;what drives excitement.&quot; In which case, I point out again, he also mentions guidelines not absolutes. I am absolutely certain he's talking about the things he considers most, and comparing them to things he considers less important and is not trying to claim he is never, ever effected by questions of what is exciting in any way at all.Again, if your core point is &quot;Most, if not all, GMs will consider what's interesting and it will have an effect on their decision-making,&quot; I am very skeptical anyone in this thread will deny it. I would be interested in any examples of someone saying interesting is complete non-factor and they are never influenced by it, because I'll happily join you in asking for that statement to be defended.I specifically addressed in an earlier post (possibly multiple) why I think this has happened.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SableWyvern, post: 9671013, member: 1008"] There is nothing in the post you were quoting that said "interesting" does not or cannot come into play. [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] talks about using realism as a guideline and says nothing about how "interesting" is (or is not) factored in. If it was said by someone else or in a different post, at a different time, I can't be expected to assume that that was what you were responding to, because it's not what you were quoting. Edit: actually, I see he mentions using "realism" instead of "what drives excitement." In which case, I point out again, he also mentions [I]guidelines[/I] not absolutes. I am absolutely certain he's talking about the things he considers most, and comparing them to things he considers less important and is not trying to claim he is never, ever effected by questions of what is exciting in any way at all. Again, if your core point is "Most, if not all, GMs will consider what's interesting and it will have an effect on their decision-making," I am very skeptical [I]anyone[/I] in this thread will deny it. I would be interested in any examples of someone saying interesting is complete non-factor and they are never influenced by it, because I'll happily join you in asking for that statement to be defended. I specifically addressed in an earlier post (possibly multiple) why I think this has happened. [/QUOTE]

Verification