Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9504286" data-attributes="member: 6690965">I've found your points insightful in the past, but I don't think you're doing your best work here. You're trying to make a call to &quot;Improv&quot; and &quot;Yes, and&quot; as established, clear rules we all understand and that's just not the case. Improv games are a diverse field taught in a grand variety of different ways, by individuals directly, through media and through experience and are not universally understood to have consistent codification. The way you're using the terms seems even more idiosyncratic, with your use of &quot;yes, and&quot; above serving to encompass &quot;no, but&quot; for example.I think you're skipping some steps. If you want to use the understanding you're working from as the basis for argument, you have to write it down somewhere other people can read it, including your definitions. You're essentially arguing for a different understanding of what RPGs fundamentally are and what rules are for, and that requires rhetorical work to support; you need to go start the Impro-Forge or equivalent and lay out all of your ideas from the ground up to use them in a space like this. Right now, it's very hard to engage with anything you're saying, because we all lack shared context that only seems to live in your brain.A lot of your posts are &quot;I've solved this problem like Y in my game&quot; which isn't something anyone can really interact without the game itself and associated context to analyze. I'm frankly down for a fair amount of your ideas as I've seen them in isolation (bring on the strict time records), but they just aren't persuasive in their current form.tl;dr: I'd read your manifesto, but until it exists separately from you, we're working from a commentary on the text without the text itself, which makes engaging with your points feel like a motte &amp; bailey we can't move past.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9504286, member: 6690965"] I've found your points insightful in the past, but I don't think you're doing your best work here. You're trying to make a call to "Improv" and "Yes, and" as established, clear rules we all understand and that's just not the case. Improv games are a diverse field taught in a grand variety of different ways, by individuals directly, through media and through experience and are not universally understood to have consistent codification. The way you're using the terms seems even more idiosyncratic, with your use of "yes, and" above serving to encompass "no, but" for example. I think you're skipping some steps. If you want to use the understanding you're working from as the basis for argument, you have to write it down somewhere other people can read it, including your definitions. You're essentially arguing for a different understanding of what RPGs fundamentally are and what rules are for, and that requires rhetorical work to support; you need to go start the Impro-Forge or equivalent and lay out all of your ideas from the ground up to use them in a space like this. Right now, it's very hard to engage with anything you're saying, because we all lack shared context that only seems to live in your brain. A lot of your posts are "I've solved this problem like Y in my game" which isn't something anyone can really interact without the game itself and associated context to analyze. I'm frankly down for a fair amount of your ideas as I've seen them in isolation (bring on the strict time records), but they just aren't persuasive in their current form. tl;dr: I'd read your manifesto, but until it exists separately from you, we're working from a commentary on the text without the text itself, which makes engaging with your points feel like a motte & bailey we can't move past. [/QUOTE]

Verification