Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7921057" data-attributes="member: 16814">Okay, to what purpose is the discussion being shaped, then?&nbsp; This seems a rephrasing of your initial statement without much change.&nbsp; I'm open to accept I've misinterpreted you, but this doesn't clarify your position for me much.I mean, there appears to be some goal you have in mind for the discussion to be shaped towards?&nbsp; I can understand that, as some discussions along these lines are, indeed, aimed at elevating one style or play or game above others.&nbsp; I'm not interested in doing so, or, really, I'm not afraid to state my opinion on playstyles as my opinion and see no need to control the terminology to clearly state my preferences and dislikes.&nbsp; Instead, I seek terminology that describes as accurately as possible, even if it's a bit uncomfortable.&nbsp; I was resistance to the concept of Force, to name a current discussion, because I used it and felt that that term was derogatory.&nbsp; But, it's not, it's descriptive.&nbsp; When I use Force now, I do it recognizing that I am, indeed, overriding player input to push my preference for the game.&nbsp; I limit my applications, and try to do so in a principled manner (my principles being having a fun game, which occasionally means I need to Force the game away from areas where I'm not prepared or ready to improvise and/or areas I or other players have indicated are uncomfortable for them).&nbsp; But, I do it, and I no longer mind the term Force because it is an good description of the tool.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7921057, member: 16814"] Okay, to what purpose is the discussion being shaped, then? This seems a rephrasing of your initial statement without much change. I'm open to accept I've misinterpreted you, but this doesn't clarify your position for me much. I mean, there appears to be some goal you have in mind for the discussion to be shaped towards? I can understand that, as some discussions along these lines are, indeed, aimed at elevating one style or play or game above others. I'm not interested in doing so, or, really, I'm not afraid to state my opinion on playstyles as my opinion and see no need to control the terminology to clearly state my preferences and dislikes. Instead, I seek terminology that describes as accurately as possible, even if it's a bit uncomfortable. I was resistance to the concept of Force, to name a current discussion, because I used it and felt that that term was derogatory. But, it's not, it's descriptive. When I use Force now, I do it recognizing that I am, indeed, overriding player input to push my preference for the game. I limit my applications, and try to do so in a principled manner (my principles being having a fun game, which occasionally means I need to Force the game away from areas where I'm not prepared or ready to improvise and/or areas I or other players have indicated are uncomfortable for them). But, I do it, and I no longer mind the term Force because it is an good description of the tool. [/QUOTE]

Verification