Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8237250" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I just can't agree with you sorry. This all very much is not how I conceptualize play. I think the world exists as a concept (shared fiction is actually something different in my mind: that is has more to do with the collective understanding the players at the table and the GM all share, the current state of play (or narration if you prefer). But a mental concept can be something that exists outside the players. It is a model that the GM has and maintains in his or&nbsp; her head, in notes, in instincts they've developed about the settings truths, and in addition to this the world grows and expands as the players interact with it and as the synergy people talk about arises. Now if you've found this doesn't work for you, fair enough. But it isn't a zero sum game between this and more player facing mechanics. Both approaches can exist. Arguments like yours frankly are like the ones people on my&nbsp; side make when they try to deny that a more narrative RPG is an RPG at all (by, for example relying on proscriptive definitions of RPG). I am not here to wage war on play styles people enjoy. I am happy to make distinctions. because distinctions are useful. but I also won't take seriously someone telling me what I know works at my table isn't working because they have developed a lexicon&nbsp; around concepts that fit their own preferred style of play (again RPG theory is nowhere near something like Music theory and even music theory is an imperfect language for understanding all forms of music)</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8237250, member: 85555"] I just can't agree with you sorry. This all very much is not how I conceptualize play. I think the world exists as a concept (shared fiction is actually something different in my mind: that is has more to do with the collective understanding the players at the table and the GM all share, the current state of play (or narration if you prefer). But a mental concept can be something that exists outside the players. It is a model that the GM has and maintains in his or her head, in notes, in instincts they've developed about the settings truths, and in addition to this the world grows and expands as the players interact with it and as the synergy people talk about arises. Now if you've found this doesn't work for you, fair enough. But it isn't a zero sum game between this and more player facing mechanics. Both approaches can exist. Arguments like yours frankly are like the ones people on my side make when they try to deny that a more narrative RPG is an RPG at all (by, for example relying on proscriptive definitions of RPG). I am not here to wage war on play styles people enjoy. I am happy to make distinctions. because distinctions are useful. but I also won't take seriously someone telling me what I know works at my table isn't working because they have developed a lexicon around concepts that fit their own preferred style of play (again RPG theory is nowhere near something like Music theory and even music theory is an imperfect language for understanding all forms of music) [/QUOTE]

Verification