Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8237893" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>I am not overstating the complexity (we have offered all kinds of description of the process and the tools we use). And I am certainly not trying to mystify the GM or aggrandize (I have consistently said I don't get overly precious about 'my world!' and that I regularly seek input from players (often asking them if they think a given ruling I propose is adequate or fair). I even pointed to the genesis for me of the living world/living adventure concept (which really if you break it down is about having moving parts: about having NPCs with a will of their own like PCs have, and having NPCs form into things of greater complexity through groups and organizations). Maybe this model doesn't work for you. That is fair. I am not trying to get anyone to play the way I play. But I definitely don't think or feel the way about RPGs the way you, Pemerton, and some of the others do. I have a much different approach, informed in part by metaphor, emotion and inspiration (which I think is the element you guys are really having a hard time with and seem to take personally for some reason), in part by a background in history-religion-philosophy, in part by things like the Feast of Goblyns section I quoted, in part by a love of world building and thought experiments. I am decidedly not an engineer. Nor am I a theorizer or a lover of jargon. There is nothing wrong with taking an engineers approach to gaming (even I have to sometimes when I am doing things like designing mechanics). But I simply am unable to fall in love with the way of talking about games, of understanding games, that you do. You read that as stubbornness or a hard headed refusal to see the facts. I don't know, I feel when you have identified your actual argument and the premises of the arguments, I've pointed to the spots in them where I am unmoved or disagree. That isn't hard headedness. I am just also not someone who is easily persuaded by good rhetoric (and there is a of good rhetoric on your side) when it runs counter to my own experience and I sense there is some fundamental flaw in the logic (even if I can't immediately identify it: though I will say I often do and that gets ignored)</p></blockquote><p></p>

Verification