Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8500395" data-attributes="member: 16814">The example of play being discussed in that review is degenerate -- the players are ignoring the intent of play (and it appears so is the GM) and so they have a bad example of play and then base a conception of how the game is flawed instead of looking at how they played the game being flawed.  The reviewer's main point seemed to be that the players decided to manipulate the game and that the GM had no tools inside the game to control this outside the game decision and approach to play.  It's a bad player argument being blamed on the structure of the game.  And I can say this because the point of play in Brindlewood is to generate fiction, and not, as the writers says, hand out coupons to retcon things that did happen in play.  When players are taking actions in Brindlewood, the clues generates should be flowing from and contingent upon those actions.  It doesn't sound like this was so.  It's absolutely true that you could make the sherrif the bad guy, but you'd need to be taking actions to discover clues to support that, and those actions will carry risks, and if the GM is softballing those risks, then you get the kind of free association game that the reviewer (who's name I cannot discover) is complaining about.And, yup, reading his post on Actual Play, it very much appears that he doesn't grasp this concept at all for play.</blockquote>