Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8233743" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>[USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], this reflects my sense of things over the course of these threads; and my point was really about the rhetoric. Where it genuinely feels like no matter how many times we say &quot;No that isn't what we do, you are missing the point of play for us&quot; a lot of people here just plow forward with an analysis that has this level of certainty to it that is not capturing anything we recognize at work within these styles. And in particular the rhetoric really does seem to focus on a kind of word play, where anything we say gets dragged into the GMs notebook (even after we take great pains to explain why its more than a note on the page, and in play it isn't merely about discovering the note). And finally, &quot;playing to discover what's in the GM's notebook&quot; is dismissive and insulting. You can ignore that as much as you want when people say it. But it has emerged in the course of playstyle debates, and was initially presented to say something to the effect of &quot;no you are not creating a living world, your players are just playing to discover what's in the GM's notebooks&quot;. If you don't attempt to understand these playstyles on their own terms, I don't think you will never understand them. And I think there is something seriously wrong with a mode of analysis that always seems to reinforce you and the other posters' who adhere to it's playstyle preferences (this is pattern I've noticed on my side of the aisle too, which is why I am no longer interested in things like definitions of RPGs that exclude narrative RPGs: it isn't honest analysis, it is playstyle debate disguised as analysis----and sometimes we don't even realize we are doing it).</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8233743, member: 85555"] [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], this reflects my sense of things over the course of these threads; and my point was really about the rhetoric. Where it genuinely feels like no matter how many times we say "No that isn't what we do, you are missing the point of play for us" a lot of people here just plow forward with an analysis that has this level of certainty to it that is not capturing anything we recognize at work within these styles. And in particular the rhetoric really does seem to focus on a kind of word play, where anything we say gets dragged into the GMs notebook (even after we take great pains to explain why its more than a note on the page, and in play it isn't merely about discovering the note). And finally, "playing to discover what's in the GM's notebook" is dismissive and insulting. You can ignore that as much as you want when people say it. But it has emerged in the course of playstyle debates, and was initially presented to say something to the effect of "no you are not creating a living world, your players are just playing to discover what's in the GM's notebooks". If you don't attempt to understand these playstyles on their own terms, I don't think you will never understand them. And I think there is something seriously wrong with a mode of analysis that always seems to reinforce you and the other posters' who adhere to it's playstyle preferences (this is pattern I've noticed on my side of the aisle too, which is why I am no longer interested in things like definitions of RPGs that exclude narrative RPGs: it isn't honest analysis, it is playstyle debate disguised as analysis----and sometimes we don't even realize we are doing it). [/QUOTE]

Verification