Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5751935" data-attributes="member: 6679551">Mercutio, you have a polite and friendly tone.&nbsp; So let me apologize profusely if I unintentionally come off as dismissive or condescending or in any way offensive.&nbsp; I will try to preserve the friendly nature of our discussion.I read your entire post and it is, imho, a disanalogy.&nbsp; I don't see the Punisher as a 4C type of character from the get go.&nbsp; The Punisher is baggage.&nbsp; That's his whole schtick.&nbsp; If you're going to allow that character, you can't turn around and say, &quot;Oh, you can't actually play like the Punisher would.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; Telling a player he can't play a character is fundamentally different from telling someone how to play that character.&nbsp; But this situation is not analogous.&nbsp; RR is playing a &quot;farmer.&quot;&nbsp; TWD deals with average people.&nbsp; RR did something which has been repeated confirmed as within the range of actions of characters on the show.&nbsp;&nbsp; RR plays a big thick guy, &quot;built like a tank.&quot;&nbsp; Many men who have imposing physical qualities, will often use those qualities to impose their will, you know, like people in guns will often use the implied threat of the gun to impose their will?&nbsp;&nbsp; I ask again in earnest, what is the disconnect here?I don't get it.&nbsp; I've never seen the show but when several people come into the thread and say, &quot;Yeah, that's something that might happen on the show&quot; how is it analogous to someone playing The Punisher in a Silver Age comic book game?&nbsp; And RR took action that people have repeated said are within the moral framework contemplated by the show.&nbsp; Exactly where does RR talk about an agreement by everyone &quot;else&quot; at the table?&nbsp; Did RR says this somewhere else in the thread?&nbsp; I'm not sure how you come to this interpretation from the statement &quot;that's not how the game is going to be played&quot; ?&nbsp; RR watched the DVD.&nbsp; How is that not attempting to resolve the problem?&nbsp;&nbsp; The session ended immediately after the &quot;doing it wrong&quot; actions were taken.&nbsp; What else could RR do at that point?&nbsp; What social contract?&nbsp; Contracts, by definition, are not unilateral.&nbsp; I don't see any stated agreement by the players on what the range of allowable actions is going to be.&nbsp; Agreeing to play in a genre does not constitute a social contract on what is acceptable behavior.&nbsp; It's merely a backdrop in which the story takes place.&nbsp; At that point, PC&quot;s are then allowed to respond to the environment.All I can say is that it is a mystery to me why so many posters read into the facts things that are not stated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Arrowhawk, post: 5751935, member: 6679551"] Mercutio, you have a polite and friendly tone. So let me apologize profusely if I unintentionally come off as dismissive or condescending or in any way offensive. I will try to preserve the friendly nature of our discussion. I read your entire post and it is, imho, a disanalogy. I don't see the Punisher as a 4C type of character from the get go. The Punisher [i]is[/i] baggage. That's his whole schtick. If you're going to allow that character, you can't turn around and say, "Oh, you can't actually play like the Punisher would." Telling a player he can't [i]play[/i] a character is fundamentally different from telling someone [i]how[/i] to play that character. But this situation is not analogous. RR is playing a "farmer." TWD deals with average people. RR did something which has been repeated confirmed as within the range of actions of characters on the show. RR plays a big thick guy, "built like a tank." Many men who have imposing physical qualities, will often use those qualities to impose their will, you know, like people in guns will often use the implied threat of the gun to impose their will? I ask again in earnest, what is the disconnect here? I don't get it. I've never seen the show but when several people come into the thread and say, "Yeah, that's something that might happen on the show" how is it analogous to someone playing The Punisher in a Silver Age comic book game? And RR took action that people have repeated said are within the moral framework contemplated by the show. Exactly where does RR talk about an agreement by everyone "else" at the table? Did RR says this somewhere else in the thread? I'm not sure how you come to this interpretation from the statement "that's not how the game is going to be played" ? RR watched the DVD. How is that not attempting to resolve the problem? The session ended immediately after the "doing it wrong" actions were taken. What else could RR do at that point? What social contract? Contracts, by definition, are not unilateral. I don't see any stated agreement by the players on what the range of allowable actions is going to be. Agreeing to play in a genre does not constitute a social contract on what is acceptable behavior. It's merely a backdrop in which the story takes place. At that point, PC"s are then allowed to respond to the environment. All I can say is that it is a mystery to me why so many posters read into the facts things that are not stated. [/QUOTE]

Verification