Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 6590969" data-attributes="member: 82106"><p>Well, I might be a bit less harsh <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    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> I mean I 'get' what [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION] is attempting to do. I just think its mostly vain and what you really end up with, given that narrative and gamist considerations perforce must be considered in order to have workable play experience, is something that is a limited form of gamist or narrativist play that IME simply improves when you take it at face value. The IDEA is OK, the problem is there's not a huge reason to do it except for 'skilled play', so maybe the agenda REALLY is 'skilled play', the testing of the player, not the character, at which point there is an antagonist that is embodied by the GM and so some semblance of fair play is necessitated. Naturalism is presumptively then an objective standard of that.</p></blockquote><p></p>