Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8231172" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I didn't say you were &quot;judging&quot; Protagonist Play.&nbsp; My response to you doesn't imply that.&nbsp; You were responding to a statement about Protagonist Play by pivoting entirely to something else.&nbsp; So it wasn't clear to me that you understood that you were pivoting.&nbsp; Therefore I attempted to highlight the pivot to clarify that you're talking about something else.If your point was just to pivot and talk about something else...then I guess...fair enough.I read your whole post.&nbsp; This is an empirical claim (which I've seen many times before):&quot;A deep well developed world has a consistency that is lacking in off the cuff designs.&quot;This is a conjecture:&quot;I just don't think DMs can pull it off (a deep, consistent world that isn't trite).&quot;My response to this is the same as it always is:Your empirical claim isn't true.&nbsp; Your conjecture based on your practical experience (its unclear exactly how much this is) with these games (a) isn't true (GMs can pull it off) and (b) your feelings may change with sufficient exposure of deftly played games that feature heavy improv.&nbsp; Run more games and play more games (with people who are proficient in running them) that do these things.&nbsp; You may still end up hating them but I don't see any evidence that you've run or played these games enough to know.Play Dogs in the Vineyard.&nbsp; Play Torchbearer.&nbsp; Play Blades in the Dark.&nbsp; Play Apocalypse/Dungeon World.&nbsp; You know what, once I free myself up from one or more games, I'd be MORE THAN HAPPY to run one of these games for you and one of your friends.&nbsp; If you still feel that these games only bear out trite play, that is completely cool.&nbsp; I'm TOTALLY fine with that orientation toward these games as a judgement from experience.&nbsp; But you actually have to have a reasonable amount of play (or any?) to make that claim and not get pushback (even if your claim is just &quot;I feel&quot;).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8231172, member: 6696971"] I didn't say you were "judging" Protagonist Play. My response to you doesn't imply that. You were responding to a statement about Protagonist Play by pivoting entirely to something else. So it wasn't clear to me that you understood that you were pivoting. Therefore I attempted to highlight the pivot to clarify that you're talking about something else. If your point was just to pivot and talk about something else...then I guess...fair enough. I read your whole post. This is an empirical claim (which I've seen many times before): "A deep well developed world has a consistency that is lacking in off the cuff designs." This is a conjecture: "I just don't think DMs can pull it off (a deep, consistent world that isn't trite)." My response to this is the same as it always is: Your empirical claim isn't true. Your conjecture based on your practical experience (its unclear exactly how much this is) with these games (a) isn't true (GMs can pull it off) and (b) your feelings may change with sufficient exposure of deftly played games that feature heavy improv. Run more games and play more games (with people who are proficient in running them) that do these things. You may still end up hating them but I don't see any evidence that you've run or played these games enough to know. Play Dogs in the Vineyard. Play Torchbearer. Play Blades in the Dark. Play Apocalypse/Dungeon World. You know what, once I free myself up from one or more games, I'd be MORE THAN HAPPY to run one of these games for you and one of your friends. If you still feel that these games only bear out trite play, that is completely cool. I'm TOTALLY fine with that orientation toward these games as a judgement from experience. But you actually have to have a reasonable amount of play (or any?) to make that claim and not get pushback (even if your claim is just "I feel"). [/QUOTE]

Verification