Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7166958" data-attributes="member: 996">Hmmm....&nbsp; I can't say I agree.&nbsp; I mean, I /have/ seen what would now be labeled 'CaW' style play do exactly that, take a tactical scenario that might have been entertaining to play through, and, via hours of OOC tedium, reduce it to a pointless rollover.&nbsp; It's just I can certainly see ways in which strategic challenge could be incorporated into a series of tactical scenarios, and provide plenty of interest at both levels.&nbsp; And even if I couldn't, I'd like to think it was possible.That said, though your style seems like an odd juxtaposition of elements usually combined in different ways into more conventionally-(on these boards anyway)-recognized circles of wagons.&nbsp; For instance, your insistence on wanting everything pre-defined is very 'simulationist,' while your focus on tactical play is very 'gamist' and the two are supposed to be antithetical (or all their reasons for loving one edition and/or hating another crumble).&nbsp; Rather than accept that they aren't antithetical, people are denying that your 'style' exists.&nbsp; &nbsp;Thanks for understanding.&nbsp;OK.&nbsp; Terminology gets thorny (I was going to say tainted, but I think tainted has become tainted in your discussion with shoak1). <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />That article had 'wargaming' and 'escapism.'&nbsp; GNS consumes game, simulation, &amp; narrative.&nbsp; The edition war made board game, MMO, tactical, narrative, immersion, dissociation, and others all toxic.&nbsp; Characterizing any element of roleplaying as 'roleplaying' (such as the social pillar) is obviously wildly prejudicial.English has over 50k words, but we still might run out!&nbsp;5e's ideally suited for that approach, IMHO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 7166958, member: 996"] Hmmm.... I can't say I agree. I mean, I /have/ seen what would now be labeled 'CaW' style play do exactly that, take a tactical scenario that might have been entertaining to play through, and, via hours of OOC tedium, reduce it to a pointless rollover. It's just I can certainly see ways in which strategic challenge could be incorporated into a series of tactical scenarios, and provide plenty of interest at both levels. And even if I couldn't, I'd like to think it was possible. That said, though your style seems like an odd juxtaposition of elements usually combined in different ways into more conventionally-(on these boards anyway)-recognized circles of wagons. For instance, your insistence on wanting everything pre-defined is very 'simulationist,' while your focus on tactical play is very 'gamist' and the two are supposed to be antithetical (or all their reasons for loving one edition and/or hating another crumble). Rather than accept that they aren't antithetical, people are denying that your 'style' exists. Thanks for understanding. OK. Terminology gets thorny (I was going to say tainted, but I think tainted has become tainted in your discussion with shoak1). ;) That article had 'wargaming' and 'escapism.' GNS consumes game, simulation, & narrative. The edition war made board game, MMO, tactical, narrative, immersion, dissociation, and others all toxic. Characterizing any element of roleplaying as 'roleplaying' (such as the social pillar) is obviously wildly prejudicial. English has over 50k words, but we still might run out! 5e's ideally suited for that approach, IMHO. [/QUOTE]

Verification