Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8237040" data-attributes="member: 16814">This is a fairly false distinction.  The GM is special because you've assumed that special role, largely because it works well with some systems, not because GM has some kind of inherent specialness.  Once we get to the point that the specialness is assigned, and understand this, we can then actually look at how that works rather than stopping at "GMs are special."  They really aren't, they're still players in the game, albeit with differentiate roles.  And those roles don't tell us anything about the difference in the fiction created except who creates them, which, as I just covered, isn't something inherent.And, as for actor stance, the players in the secret door example I gave were entirely within actor stance.  Saying, "I search for a secret door," is right there in actor stance -- the PC is really hoping to find a secret door to escape the guards and is trying to do so.  The difference is the outcome of this, which, for the player, is still largely the same -- the system is engaged and the result says whether or not you find a secret door.  The real difference here is that, in the first example, that system is "the GM decides according to what they think it should be" and the second in "the mechanics decide."  The players don't step outside their characters in either.To be blunt, again -- given you've no experience with other modes of play, what you feel is true is largely irrelevant.  People with that experience and who still use both approaches are telling you that this is not correct, but you persist, arguing from ignorance with assurance.And, to be blunt again -- it's perfectly cool to never, ever get that experience.  It's perfectly cool to be super happy with how you play and not want to bother with another system or think that you wouldn't like it anyway.  100% hunky-dory.  It's the claims that your method produces a specific result that other methods cannot that's the issue -- you've zero evidence or experience to make this claim, but persist in the face of people that do have both saying otherwise.It's not like writing a novel together at all.  It's a completely different thing.But, you are denying my experience.  Just a few pages ago you were broaching the question if my experience even counts as an RPG!  Meanwhile, I have 100% been consistently saying that you have a 100% valid way to play, a fun way to play, that I've both played that way and will probably do so again (feeling a hankering for a hexcrawl starting to lurk), and that there's zero wrong with playing this way.  The only denying is coming from one direction, and it's not pointed at you.Has there been some blunt discussion of how play operates?  Sure.  Can this be uncomfortable? Absolutely, any good criticism should be uncomfortable or it's not doing much.  I'm running 5e right now, hugely closer to your preferences than a game like Blades in the Dark.  Everything I've said applies to my own play, and I'm not the least bit upset or sorry about that -- I've embraced this, looked at how it works, and decided it's just fine for me.  I will use this approach when it suits the goals I have for that game, 100%, without reservation.  And I'll also freely admit that I'm currently running a hard railroad, that play is about discovering what's in the notes, and that there's pretty much zero protagonism in my game.  And we're having a blast!I'm not denying your experience.  I'm saying that when you say that your approach gives you X, and you can't get that any other way, that's incorrect.  If you say that your approach gives you X in a way you prefer, I'll applaud that you've found the right way for you to play to maximize fun!  And, I'll still talk about how games work.I'm had Bedrockgames on ignore for some time, largely because I got tired of the constant accusations of attacking him, personally, while he's busy attacking others, personally.  So, no, thank you.That your approach has value to you and yours is beyond question, and I've never questioned it.</blockquote>

Verification