What is the point of GM's notes?

[Ovinomancer]

I think his point was he attacking the argument by labeling it fear mongering (at least in that post: obviously he addressed the argument itself in other areas of the discussion). i don't honestly know or care whether this instance qualifies a proper ad hom. I don't think MaxPerson was deeply invested in that notion ether. I suspect he was mainly responding to the spirit of Aldarc's posts towards me (which I would say have largely been hostile, and here doubly so). He is also probably responding to the fact that basically everyone in the thread is dog piling on me. I don't particularly care if folks do that. They can if they want. But that is what so often happens in threads with this circle of posters.

Man, this is really after you, isn't it? Responding twice to the same post? You should charge me rent for all this space in your head! I'm cheap, though, so I'll probably skip paying and you'll have to evict me, but I'll warn you I might sneak back in and squat.

Max is usually fully invested in informal logical fallacies. I've been around that block with him a few times. S'ok, I just tend to point them out from time to time. And, yes, you are getting dogpiled. It's not because people are mean, or that you're a visionary being set upon by the masses, but rather that your recent arguments are so outlandishly framed that they invite lots of responses to the negative. You've literally claimed that you're worried that using "fiction" will cause undue confusion in people if allowed out of this thread, which is just silly because it's been in the wild, used exactly as it has been in this thread, for decades. It's not a new thing, and your fears have not come to fruition. I think the fearmongering thing is, as you noted, hyperbolic, but it at least gave you a new vector for claiming to be a victim instead of examining the silliness of some of your arguments (specifically the "fiction" one, oh, and the claiming that people are denying "living world" is even possible -- I don't know how anyone could say this, as no one outside of you and a few others even understand what it means and no one's bothered to put out a good explanation -- hmm, maybe it doesn't exist?). I hope that works out well for you, you seem to be pretty adept at managing these things, given that we're so far into this thread and you've managed to make it about you and your concern over words. Kudos!

 

[Campbell]

Back to prep.

One of the techniques we're useful in our games is to skip long backgrounds and instead develop 4-5 connected NPCs when you create a character (1-4 sentences on each). We find that it really helps to flesh out a PC if we get a glimpse of who is important in their life.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It is being nasty, you are singling out another poster and basically making fun of their grasp of a concept like fallacies (which in nerd circles, and we are in a nerd circle, has lots of social value). If you want to attack someone or belittle them, go ahead, I don't report posters as a rule. But don't do it and act like you are not.

I'm not making fun of him, I'm saying he's wrong in this case. When did saying people are wrong, and explaining why, become making fun of them? And, it's also true that Max often throws out logical fallacies -- they seem, to him, to be easy win buttons that you just have to press if a situation looks remotely close enough. Meh, not really concerned about your tone policing here, anyway. Max was incorrect, it's not an ad hom, and I'm less and less interested in letting you direct conversation away from any useful discussion. Toodles!

 

[Bedrockgames]

Man, this is really after you, isn't it? Responding twice to the same post? You should charge me rent for all this space in your head! I'm cheap, though, so I'll probably skip paying and you'll have to evict me, but I'll warn you I might sneak back in and squat.

Max is usually fully invested in informal logical fallacies. I've been around that block with him a few times. S'ok, I just tend to point them out from time to time. And, yes, you are getting dogpiled. It's not because people are mean, or that you're a visionary being set upon by the masses, but rather that your recent arguments are so outlandishly framed that they invite lots of responses to the negative. You've literally claimed that you're worried that using "fiction" will cause undue confusion in people if allowed out of this thread, which is just silly because it's been in the wild, used exactly as it has been in this thread, for decades. It's not a new thing, and your fears have not come to fruition. I think the fearmongering thing is, as you noted, hyperbolic, but it at least gave you a new vector for claiming to be a victim instead of examining the silliness of some of your arguments (specifically the "fiction" one, oh, and the claiming that people are denying "living world" is even possible -- I don't know how anyone could say this, as no one outside of you and a few others even understand what it means and no one's bothered to put out a good explanation -- hmm, maybe it doesn't exist?). I hope that works out well for you, you seem to be pretty adept at managing these things, given that we're so far into this thread and you've managed to make it about you and your concern over words. Kudos!

You have problems.

My arguments aren't outlandish at all. I made a very reasonable argument about equivocation on a term.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not making fun of him, I'm saying he's wrong in this case.

No, you are making fun of him. You are doing it the way we gamers and geeks always make fun of people: trying to make them insecure about their knowledge and intellect. You aren't just saying he is wrong in this case or that you disagree, you are accusing him of failing to grasp fallacies consistently over time, as a trait of his personality.

 

[Bedrockgames]

When it comes to having a shared language of play naturalistic language pretty much erases the creative act which is where the vast majority of actual differences in playstyle live. Differences in how we approach the creative act pretty much are the foundations of different approaches to playing RPGs. The actual act of play in the moment is almost identical so by diminishing the creative act we leave ourselves with almost nothing useful to say to each other.

There's also the bit that the general language we use to describe play should not elevate any given playstyle. Besides making us contort to talk about play that exists outside of the mainstream naturalistic descriptions of play tend to elevate certain styles as being more real or authentic.

No one is demising the creative act. People are making creative choices in that process. What stuff like living world gets to is the how and why you make those choices. Again for me, something about that passage saying Harkon Lucas is a living breathing character, suddenly made making choices for him in play so much more understandable and easy. That is why I like language like Living World and Living Adventure. The language of the passage was actually to describe it as a wandering major encounter, and the paragraph ended with 'they live!' and my summary of that has become "Living Adventure", which when applied broadly to the setting as a whole is "living world". If it doesn't work for you, it doesn't work for you. You and I clearly think about games very differently from one another.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You have problems.

My arguments aren't outlandish at all. I made a very reasonable argument about equivocation on a term.

Where you used equivocation incorrectly (you meant ambiguity) and where the theorized harm has never occurred in the wild despite the very thing you argued about being out there for decades (referring to game outputs as "fiction")? You may feel your arguments are valid, and sound, but there's good evidence that they just don't pan out at all.

 

[prabe]

Back to prep.

One of the techniques we're useful in our games is to skip long backgrounds and instead develop 4-5 connected NPCs when you create a character (1-4 sentences on each). We find that it really helps to flesh out a PC if we get a glimpse of who is important in their life.

I can see that working. Of course, I'd probably write my typical-length narrative background and extract NPCs from it. That is, honestly, how I'd probably do any kind of explicitly narrowed background like this--it's just easier for how my brain works.

I'd imagine you could ask for a place or two, as another option. I know some character ideas start with where they're from (at least, some of my character ideas do). I'm sure y'all have thought that through.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No, you are making fun of him. You are doing it the way we gamers and geeks always make fun of people: trying to make them insecure about their knowledge and intellect. You aren't just saying he is wrong in this case or that you disagree, you are accusing him of failing to grasp fallacies consistently over time, as a trait of his personality.

Ah, I get it, you get to tell me what I mean when I say things. Cool, it's a nifty power, I guess. Can I call on you when I next get into an argument with my wife? Regardless, you're now making this argument about me, personally, and not about what I said. I believe this may be veering into something, but I can quite put my finger on it. I'm sure it will become more clear if you continue this by making about me, though, so have at, clarity is a-coming!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Back to prep.

One of the techniques we're useful in our games is to skip long backgrounds and instead develop 4-5 connected NPCs when you create a character (1-4 sentences on each). We find that it really helps to flesh out a PC if we get a glimpse of who is important in their life.

So my regular group just started a new campaign with the intention of rotating GMs periodically. So we crafted many of the NPCs in our starting town as a group. We established who knew whom and why.

Each of the PCs feels like they have their own place in the setting...like they existed beforehand instead of springing to life spontaneously at the start of the game.