What is the point of GM's notes?

[Imaro]

Well, @Imaro has managed to deftly turn this thread from a discussion of games to a discussion of the participants. A quite nice derailing by ad hominem. Kudos, I think, given it appears the intent was to stop any possible discussion about games to begin with.

Wow... just wow.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, a couple things I learned last night:

* Imaro and Bedrockgames think I'm a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people...which tells me they CLEARLY dislike me WAAAAAY more than I even thought. I knew there was hostility there after nearly a decade of conversation, but I didn't realize the temperature was that hot.

*

I don’t dislike you at all, and I don’t think you are an ass. I have found some of the things you have said to be a bit pompous at times (mostly though I don’t think this is the case: mainly I think you have more of an engineer mind and I have more of an artist mind and that is where much our disagreement arises). Also you saying something I think sounds pompous doesn’t mean I conclude you are a pompous person. But I have also found your posts to be incredibly honest and genuine, and I have found many of your posts to be insightful and you’ve been willing to bridge gaps when I don’t understand your meaning (you don’t just doing jargon at me but show empathy when I don’t understand). Also I like talking with you about martial arts

edit: to get specific, the aspect of your post that felt pompous to me was when you said people were reacting to concepts like living world being demystified (and drew a tacit parallel to science demystifying superstition)

 

[Manbearcat]

This just isn't true. You're making it personal and it's not. I don't think anything about you and I stated as much earlier. I can dislike how you deliver something without being hostile to you as a person.

I'm not offended and I'm not taking it personal. We don't know each other outside of our interactions on here.

But if you're telling me my takeaway from this exchange is wrong and you think I'm just as likely to be a person of integrity as not (someone who is a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people is not a person of integrity...they're despicable)...then I'll extend you the courtesy of buying in.

EDIT - @Bedrockgames , we cross-posted. Same above here applies to your post.

 

[Maxperson]

Nevermind, shouldn't post with a fever.

Feel better man.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'll take whatever responsibility here that I can muster.

I totally thought it was going to be an innocuous, nothingburger aside. I was sincerely interested in the two questions I asked that fueled this whole thing. I shouldn't have asked them.

Nah, your questions were absolutely fine. I'm still keen to hear your responses!

 

[Bedrockgames]

That is pretty much what I meant. I was using the phrase as shorthand to stand in for a lot of discussion we've had elsewhere. Specifically about sandboxes. Anyway, just so people understand that that style is something that most of us enjoy.

I got that, I just think it is worth making the clarify

But if you're telling me my takeaway from this exchange is wrong and you think I'm just as likely to be a person of integrity as not (someone who is a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people is not a person of integrity...they're despicable)...then I'll extend you the courtesy of buying in.

I want to be clear: I don’t think you were bullying anyone. Your posts never seem to venture into intellectual bullying (quite the opposite)

 

[Manbearcat]

Nah, your questions were absolutely fine. I'm still keen to hear your responses!

I meant the latter two that sparked this.

The two you're talking about brought about some interesting discussion! I don't regret those! I still have to get back to a ton of posts and get responses up (yours included).

That is likely not going to happen until some time this weekend. I've got a lot of stuff going on including a game tonigh.

 

[Imaro]

I'm not offended and I'm not taking it personal. We don't know each other outside of our interactions on here.

But if you're telling me my takeaway from this exchange is wrong and you think I'm just as likely to be a person of integrity as not (someone who is a pompous ass who intellectually bullies people is not a person of integrity...they're despicable)...then I'll extend you the courtesy of buying in.

You asked me about this particular thread, and not you personally. I felt the thread did have undertones of arrogance and pompousness to it, and I answered honestly... not sure how that became what I think about Manbearcat but the two are totally different questions. There are particular posters in this thread that I do feel are pompous and arrogant overall but you're seriously not on that list... that said they have contributed to that general feeling in the thread. So yes your takeaway is wrong. If I thought you as a person were bullying, arrogant or pompous I wouldn't engage with you. Again I may not agree with you and I may not always be correct but I'm engaging with you and others because I find you all interesting and worth engaging with.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I wasn't going to reply, but your post re @Imaro touches on this point.
The issue I had was "playing to discover the GM's notes" - doesn't at the outset paint a particular roleplaying style in good stead, and no I'm not equipped to give a decent enough definition of the style, but I do not need to in order to recognise a negatively slanted one. And yes, facts do not care about your feelings, but if one wishes to have a productive thread where one can encourage others to peer outside and over their sandboxes then what you should aim for is you can catch more flies with honey than with vinegar

So I also mentioned upthread that some were replying in earnest and receiving unnecessarily sharp replies and that is because the waters were tainted from the beginning.

This is not an attack but an observation. I hope you take it in that spirit.

I think that the fact that you can't come up with a better description is telling, though. It "playing to discover the GM's notes" somewhat blunt and unromantic? Absolutely it is. It's also a succinct description of the play. And, I one I willing admit to using myself. If your interest is in teasing out what's actually happening in play, so that you can do it better, a blunt, unromantic description is best. It's not a negative, though, because it produces fun play, it's just blunt.

I think a large part of the hostility that occurs in these threads is that a number of people have how they game as a core identifier of self -- it's important to their self image. So, any statement that seems to reduce the import of that becomes extremely fraught very quickly. It's why we get people trying to shut down these threads or lockdowns about terminology. If you use a positive sounding term for other gaming, it's bad, because it suggests that positive things isn't about your gaming. If you describe a process bluntly (playing to find out the GM's conception of the fiction vs living world, for instance), then there's a feeling that this is an attack on self. The people that hold gaming as part of their identity are always going to be resistant to any breakdown or analysis, because this threatens their sense of self.

 

[Manbearcat]

You asked me about this particular thread, and not you personally. I felt the thread did have undertones of arrogance and pompousness to it, and I answered honestly... not sure how that became what I think about Manbearcat but the two are totally different questions. There are particular posters in this thread that I do feel are pompous and arrogant overall but you're seriously not on that list... that said they have contributed to that general feeling in the thread. So yes your takeaway is wrong. If I thought you as a person were bullying, arrogant or pompous I wouldn't engage with you. Again I may not agree with you and I may not always be correct but I'm engaging with you and others because I find you all interesting and worth engaging with.

10-4

I'm going to stick a fork in this dreadful aside that I sparked.

Maybe folks want to get back to talking about what we were talking about before I sidetracked this. I'll get thoughts up to the pending responses that I have to work through some time this weekend.