Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9678271" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I just...Okay? Like if you're going to tell me that you refuse to participate in further discussion, I can't really demand anything of you otherwise. But it's just profoundly confusing to be told that there will never be situations where the GM controls events, and then be told that actually the GM will not allow some events and will allow other events. I simply don't understand how those things are reconciled. I can't ask you to speak any more on it, but it comes across as directly contradictory while denying that there could ever be any possible way to interpret it as contradictory.Declaring at the start of the game that one will forbid pathways that produce an un-fun adventure, as far as I had understood it, was directly and explicitly incompatible with declaring that one is running a &quot;traditional GM&quot; sandbox-y campaign.Okay. That's still something which skips over a scene for pacing reasons though. Like...sure, you've evaded &quot;fail forward&quot;. But you've done so in a way that concedes what the example of &quot;fail forward&quot; was aimed at, namely, cutting out pointless non-conflict events so the game can move onward. That's still picking some &quot;conflict-neutral&quot; events to gloss over without any attention paid to them. If that isn't conceding the fundamental point--that most people do in fact skip over &quot;unimportant&quot; scenes, because doing so specifically makes the experience of play better--then I don't know what you are saying.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9678271, member: 6790260"] I just... Okay? Like if you're going to tell me that you refuse to participate in further discussion, I can't really demand anything of you otherwise. But it's just profoundly [I]confusing[/I] to be told that there will never be situations where the GM controls events, and [I]then[/I] be told that actually the GM will not allow some events and will allow other events. I simply don't understand how those things are reconciled. I can't ask you to speak any more on it, but it comes across as directly contradictory while denying that there could ever be any possible way to interpret it as contradictory. Declaring at the start of the game that one will forbid pathways that produce an un-fun adventure, as far as I had understood it, was [I]directly and explicitly[/I] incompatible with declaring that one is running a "traditional GM" sandbox-y campaign. Okay. That's still something which skips over a scene for pacing reasons though. Like...sure, you've evaded "fail forward". But you've done so in a way that concedes what the example of "fail forward" was aimed at, namely, cutting out pointless non-conflict events so the game can move onward. That's still picking some "conflict-neutral" events to gloss over without any attention paid to them. If that isn't conceding the fundamental point--that most people do in fact skip over "unimportant" scenes, because doing so specifically makes the experience of play better--then I don't know what you [I]are[/I] saying. [/QUOTE]

Verification