Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6400818" data-attributes="member: 2067">This connection intrigues me a bit because it's not something that has really occurred to me. Perhaps it is your more philosophical bent that is neutralizing the possibility space here, but I don't see an opposition there. If you are changing the world according to your beliefs, of COURSE those who oppose your beliefs are going to have a bad time of it. It's a story of transformation, and transformation is not a process that leaves everything intact and content.I think you may be conflating the ability to change the multiverse with "wish fulfillment." Imposing your beliefs on the world should never be an easy or straightforward process.Plenty of narrative fiction is also a puzzle (obligatory James Joyce allusion for the day complete!). And every puzzle has a narrative core (I begin. I confront obstacles. I get better. I succeed....or I fail...).I think a core part of our conversation is me trying to parse the jargon you're using in a very specific way that just isn't clearly evident from the natural meaning I take from the words. Narrative is a part of all those modules (even if it's just the narrative of how Joe the Fighter failed to check for traps before he died), though not necessarily the focus. And "fictional positioning" as you described it doesn't seem to me to oppose or be incompatible with narrative, in that all narratives involved in RPGs are based in DMs adjudicating player declarations because that is the mechanic by which an RPG is played out. I'm finding it a little difficult to conceive of an RPG without functional "fictional positioning" (even if it's a fellow player doing the adjudicating, it serves the same purpose). Again, we get you using terms in immensely specific ways whose meanings aren't readily apparent. Narrative fiction can provide very similar entertainment to crossword puzzles and board games in that they allow for problem-solving and deduction and solution-seeking. Heck, the entire genre of crime novels -- one of the most popular book genres! -- is built around evoking that emotion. I've never heard a description of a James Bond movie that accused it of not having a dramatic conflict. In terms of its emotional intensity, the good ones at least have very dramatic conflict! I do see how those two conflicts are distinct, but both seem dramatic to me. One is a character-oriented, internal conflict, and one is situational (to use terms actually used by script-writers to distinguish these conflicts), but both are dramatic in terms of containing a lot of drama. Certainly wasn't the card I was playing. Merely suggesting that the "serious" flaw you find in Planescape might not be a flaw of Planescape per se as much as it is a "default state" for D&D that PS doesn't see a pressing need to change. I don't think I understand enough what you are actually looking for to be able to understand why the Nentir Vale does it for you but other D&D settings don't. Certainly not my intent. My only goal here is to understand your actual criticisms and see why and how they apply to PS specifically. I feel like I might have a small sense of what you're actually looking for in a game (internal character conflict?), which is a hard-won starting point, but I can't currently connect that to something PS is weak at.Which doesn't mean you can't like what you like and not like what you don't like, it just means I'm not clear on actually why, in either case. Like, I get why Hussar doesn't like PS (he feels the lore is too controlling). I disagree, of course, but I get where he's coming from. The Shadow's mention upthread of not enjoying irreverence in the face of majesty is also something I can basically understand, and there I'd even agree that this is a thing that PS does. Same with your dislike of the cant and your dislike of the Intro to Philosophy factions. I get it, and it's something that PS does. There's reason to like those three things, but if you don't, yeah, PS at its most iconic isn't going to be your bag.It's harder for me to understand your more "serious" issue with the setting. My comprehension issues don't invalidate your feelings (feelings can't be wrong), but my questions aren't meant to call into question the validity, merely to try to tease out the actual truth of the matter. If it's becoming more personal for you, it might be better to let it lie until this theme comes up again in 6 months or so. <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=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification