Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 9497353" data-attributes="member: 6801252">Then don't wield the concept of insulting you as a bludgeon to win an argument, its like the civility equivalent of insurance fraud.OP was pretty clear about the alignment they were looking for being a greater sense of distance towards Han's own intentions and incentives in favor of greater emotional investment in sculpting a star wars esque narrative, and having their character behave accordingly to prioritize that goal. That means they want the player's goal for the character, and the character's goal to unalign. The character wants a faster ship and to be out of debt, but the desired player wants a specific diegetic arc where the ship and the debt aren't important, only that they function as initial calls to adventure. Op is demanding that the character stop caring about those things once the princess comes along, because &quot;hey, that's star wars right?&quot;Arguably, OP isn't even quite in the category you're discussing or the set of grievances being raised, because they want to have the desired arc in mind. They don't want the player to play to find out, they want the player to play to parallel the OT's themes and plot, and execute a specific set of creative visions, it's a permutation on Trad (this campaign is about joining the rebellion) or OC (you should have some kind of arc in mind for me to work into the campaign).There's no way to talk about this without the understanding that they are in fact, writers, in a room, discussing how each character should be written for the sake of alignment with a desired vision, editing the participants understanding of their character motivations until it produces that specific creative vision, in other words, &quot;George Lucas Stance.&quot;Edits: elaboration, sorry I know the thread is moving fast.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The-Magic-Sword, post: 9497353, member: 6801252"] Then don't wield the concept of insulting you as a bludgeon to win an argument, its like the civility equivalent of insurance fraud. OP was pretty clear about the alignment they were looking for being a greater sense of distance towards Han's own intentions and incentives in favor of greater emotional investment in sculpting a star wars esque narrative, and having their character behave accordingly to prioritize that goal. That means they want the player's goal for the character, and the character's goal to unalign. The character wants a faster ship and to be out of debt, but the desired player wants a specific diegetic arc where the ship and the debt aren't important, only that they function as initial calls to adventure. Op is demanding that the character stop caring about those things once the princess comes along, because "hey, that's star wars right?" Arguably, OP isn't even quite in the category you're discussing or the set of grievances being raised, because they want to have the desired arc in mind. They don't want the player to play to find out, they want the player to play to parallel the OT's themes and plot, and execute a specific set of creative visions, it's a permutation on Trad (this campaign is about joining the rebellion) or OC (you should have some kind of arc in mind for me to work into the campaign). There's no way to talk about this without the understanding that they are in fact, writers, in a room, discussing how each character should be written for the sake of alignment with a desired vision, editing the participants understanding of their character motivations until it produces that specific creative vision, in other words, "George Lucas Stance." Edits: elaboration, sorry I know the thread is moving fast. [/QUOTE]

Verification