Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 8232760" data-attributes="member: 5142">I don't think it's an &quot;attack&quot; to accurately describe the play procedures or playstyle being described here as &quot;playing to discover what's in the GM's notes.&quot; And I do believe, though you may likely feel differently, that pemerton and others have sufficiently explained and justified how this descriptor applies to said procedures. I don't think that this play procedure under discussion is necessarily limited to your own preferred &quot;traditional sandbox or living world&quot; style games either, since this could also apply to AP play. And I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, as I am someone who also regularly plays and runs games where &quot;play to discover what's in the GM's notes&quot; would be an apt description, including traditional sandbox games. I also know that I'm not the only one who runs games on &quot;both sides of the fence,&quot; so to speak. I'm not sure why I should be offended by pemerton's characterization of these games, though perhaps you can shed light on why I should be offended or I should construe this as a playstyle attack. My experience is that passive-aggressive barbs like this do more harm than benefit for discussions. So I would suggest that the best way to move forward is to instead help with digging deeper in regards to the analysis rather than fishing for new ways to be offended by imaginary slights against your preferred playstyle.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 8232760, member: 5142"] I don't think it's an "attack" to accurately describe the play procedures or playstyle being described here as "playing to discover what's in the GM's notes." And I do believe, though you may likely feel differently, that pemerton and others have sufficiently explained and justified how this descriptor applies to said procedures. I don't think that this play procedure under discussion is necessarily limited to your own preferred "traditional sandbox or living world" style games either, since this could also apply to AP play. And I don't necessarily think that this is a bad thing, as I am someone who also regularly plays and runs games where "play to discover what's in the GM's notes" would be an apt description, including traditional sandbox games. I also know that I'm not the only one who runs games on "both sides of the fence," so to speak. I'm not sure why I should be offended by pemerton's characterization of these games, though perhaps you can shed light on why I should be offended or I should construe this as a playstyle attack. My experience is that passive-aggressive barbs like this do more harm than benefit for discussions. So I would suggest that the best way to move forward is to instead help with digging deeper in regards to the analysis rather than fishing for new ways to be offended by imaginary slights against your preferred playstyle. [/QUOTE]

Verification