Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8234413" data-attributes="member: 16814">I am currently running a game that does not feature protagonism.&nbsp; I am doing this willingly, because I also enjoy this kind of game.&nbsp; This should, absolutely, put paid to this very specious statement.&nbsp; It isn't about defining a term so that it represents my preferred mode of play -- it cannot be this because I'm currently, willingly, playing a game that this term, which I argue for, is not represented at all.The continued argument is just a veiled ad hom -- you aren't addressing the arguments I've made, but instead cast this as intentional use of a loaded term by someone trying to denigrate your playstyle.&nbsp; This is absolutely false -- I learned to play in your style, and have fond memories of it.&nbsp; It isn't a stranger to me, even if I've largely moved on and adopted different play.&nbsp; I have zero reason to denigrate that play.&nbsp; I do have reason to promote other approaches, though, which is often characterized by you as denigration of your play, as if other forms of play somehow discount your own.&nbsp; It's a silly defensive posture you adopt in these discussion, an approach that this is war, and any ground given, even to a term that describes play you dislike because it means you can't use it to describe your play, must be fought without quarter.&nbsp; It's silly.&nbsp; Here, people have a term that clearly describes a type of play where the PCs are protagonized in all ways -- the game is entirely focused on the PC's dramatic need, thus maximizing every moment to be about the PCs.&nbsp; A style of play you've clearly said you dislike.&nbsp; And yet, you're fighting to have this term defined in a way so that even Monopoly features it (choice made there develop into emergent play, and a story is told).&nbsp; I mean, cool.From now on, protagonism on my end will be described as badwrongfunveryterrible play.&nbsp; Badwrongfunveryterrible play is where the game is focused on the dramatic needs of the PCs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8234413, member: 16814"] [B][I][U]I am currently running a game that does not feature protagonism.[/U][/I][/B] I am doing this willingly, because I also enjoy this kind of game. This should, absolutely, put paid to this very specious statement. It isn't about defining a term so that it represents my preferred mode of play -- it cannot be this because I'm currently, willingly, playing a game that this term, which I argue for, is not represented at all. The continued argument is just a veiled ad hom -- you aren't addressing the arguments I've made, but instead cast this as intentional use of a loaded term by someone trying to denigrate your playstyle. This is absolutely false -- I learned to play in your style, and have fond memories of it. It isn't a stranger to me, even if I've largely moved on and adopted different play. I have zero reason to denigrate that play. I do have reason to promote other approaches, though, which is often characterized by you as denigration of your play, as if other forms of play somehow discount your own. It's a silly defensive posture you adopt in these discussion, an approach that this is war, and any ground given, even to a term that describes play you dislike because it means you can't use it to describe your play, must be fought without quarter. It's silly. Here, people have a term that clearly describes a type of play where the PCs are protagonized in all ways -- the game is entirely focused on the PC's dramatic need, thus maximizing every moment to be about the PCs. A style of play you've clearly said you dislike. And yet, you're fighting to have this term defined in a way so that even Monopoly features it (choice made there develop into emergent play, and a story is told). I mean, cool. From now on, protagonism on my end will be described as badwrongfunveryterrible play. Badwrongfunveryterrible play is where the game is focused on the dramatic needs of the PCs. [/QUOTE]

Verification