Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LostSoul" data-source="post: 6301131" data-attributes="member: 386">I think this is funny because I think everything you write seems to me to fall within the scope of the Big Model of the Forge.&nbsp; The reason why I think it's funny is because I can't understand why some people - those who have decades of RPG experience - read the exact same thing and come to wildly different conclusions.I don't see anything about what you write that contradicts the Big Model; in fact, I think it reinforces it.&nbsp; When you speak about &quot;game constructs&quot; I think &quot;that is how gamism treats the shared imaginary space.&quot;&nbsp; It all makes perfect sense to me: the DM has his &quot;game pattern&quot; behind the screen and the players play to try and figure it out.&nbsp; What the players are trying to do is figure out what lies in that shared imaginary space.&nbsp; The pattern - because it doesn't exist - I call &quot;the fiction&quot;, but I can see why you don't: it lies in the mindspace of the DM and the rules of the game (most of which are made up over time by the DM).&nbsp; &quot;The fiction&quot; can be discovered by the players and is - no, it makes up - the game space; that is, the space upon which the players can make decisions.&nbsp; So when I say, &quot;You strike first because you have longer reach,&quot; I'm referencing the game pattern - the rules of the game - but also the fiction.&nbsp; I don't see a difference between the two.I think what you say reinforces the Big Model because it's obvious that storygames should not be played in the manner of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Those who want to play D&amp;D in the manner of storygames should probably switch systems.I can't see anything that contradicts the Big Model in any way at all.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LostSoul, post: 6301131, member: 386"] I think this is funny because I think everything you write seems to me to fall within the scope of the Big Model of the Forge. The reason why I think it's funny is because I can't understand why some people - those who have decades of RPG experience - read the exact same thing and come to wildly different conclusions. I don't see anything about what you write that contradicts the Big Model; in fact, I think it reinforces it. When you speak about "game constructs" I think "that is how gamism treats the shared imaginary space." It all makes perfect sense to me: the DM has his "game pattern" behind the screen and the players play to try and figure it out. What the players are trying to do is figure out what lies in that shared imaginary space. The pattern - because it doesn't exist - I call "the fiction", but I can see why you don't: it lies in the mindspace of the DM and the rules of the game (most of which are made up over time by the DM). "The fiction" can be discovered by the players and is - no, it makes up - the game space; that is, the space upon which the players can make decisions. So when I say, "You strike first because you have longer reach," I'm referencing the game pattern - the rules of the game - but also the fiction. I don't see a difference between the two. I think what you say reinforces the Big Model because it's obvious that storygames should not be played in the manner of D&D. Those who want to play D&D in the manner of storygames should probably switch systems. I can't see anything that contradicts the Big Model in any way at all. [/QUOTE]

Verification