Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8240502" data-attributes="member: 16814">Is this ironic?&nbsp; You've again misused my name, I have to assume intentionally at this point, while claiming victimhood.&nbsp; Not a great look.&nbsp; I mean, I get it, it's a nice tactic, but it doesn't really bother me -- I've been called much worse.&nbsp; I point it out because of how small it makes you look.I did get to the &quot;meat&quot; of my meaning -- right from the start, where I defined the term as I used it, and multiple times thereafter.&nbsp; This is a &quot;both sides&quot; argument that falls flat.&nbsp; As for connotation, yes, that's the argument often used to dismissing analysis or criticism.&nbsp; I mean, I freely use the term to describe my own play as lacking protagonism, so that pulls a lot of teeth from the &quot;it's mean to denigrate an approach&quot; argument.&nbsp; When I run D&amp;D, protagonism is very lacking, and this is fine because it's not a needed thing.And, here we are with &quot;different tastes&quot; again.&nbsp; This is a motte argument, because how can someone disagree with people having different tastes?&nbsp; You can't.&nbsp; But, what you do with this argument is what I pointed out above -- different tastes is being used to negate analysis, as if what you like means you cannot deconstruct play at all.&nbsp; It's like saying that no one can successfully deconstruct what makes mac and cheese good, or the various ways you can make mac and cheese, or the impact of ingredient quality, because different people like different kinds of mac and cheese (or don't like it at all), so such discussion is pointless.One shouldn't be making assumptions about other people's answers when engaging in analysis.&nbsp; The point of the question was twofold, in my opinion.&nbsp; Firstly, it was collect information about how other people use GM notes in play.&nbsp; And, secondly, to cause people to stop and think about how they use notes in play -- to do a bit of self-analysis to tease out a procedure of play that they use and how GM notes work within that procedure.&nbsp; It's this latter that seems to be the point of contention -- some seem to strongly dislike analyzing their procedures of play in clear terms of process, for reasons I'm still unsure of.&nbsp; There seems to be a great deal of fear that there's some kind of trap, and that somehow in providing clear statements of process you'll stumble into given away a stick that will then be used to beat you.&nbsp; Which is weird, to me, because others have clearly done so without concern.&nbsp; I am currently running a game where the GM notes work exactly as you state above, and it's also a railroad (which isn't implied by what you state above), and which has little to no protagonism, as defined previously in this thread.&nbsp; None of this phases me, it's an honest statement of what's happening at my table, and it doesn't phase me because we're having fun.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8240502, member: 16814"] Is this ironic? You've again misused my name, I have to assume intentionally at this point, while claiming victimhood. Not a great look. I mean, I get it, it's a nice tactic, but it doesn't really bother me -- I've been called much worse. I point it out because of how small it makes you look. I did get to the "meat" of my meaning -- right from the start, where I defined the term as I used it, and multiple times thereafter. This is a "both sides" argument that falls flat. As for connotation, yes, that's the argument often used to dismissing analysis or criticism. I mean, I freely use the term to describe my own play as lacking protagonism, so that pulls a lot of teeth from the "it's mean to denigrate an approach" argument. When I run D&D, protagonism is very lacking, and this is fine because it's not a needed thing. And, here we are with "different tastes" again. This is a motte argument, because how can someone disagree with people having different tastes? You can't. But, what you do with this argument is what I pointed out above -- different tastes is being used to negate analysis, as if what you like means you cannot deconstruct play at all. It's like saying that no one can successfully deconstruct what makes mac and cheese good, or the various ways you can make mac and cheese, or the impact of ingredient quality, because different people like different kinds of mac and cheese (or don't like it at all), so such discussion is pointless. One shouldn't be making assumptions about other people's answers when engaging in analysis. The point of the question was twofold, in my opinion. Firstly, it was collect information about how other people use GM notes in play. And, secondly, to cause people to stop and think about how they use notes in play -- to do a bit of self-analysis to tease out a procedure of play that they use and how GM notes work within that procedure. It's this latter that seems to be the point of contention -- some seem to strongly dislike analyzing their procedures of play in clear terms of process, for reasons I'm still unsure of. There seems to be a great deal of fear that there's some kind of trap, and that somehow in providing clear statements of process you'll stumble into given away a stick that will then be used to beat you. Which is weird, to me, because others have clearly done so without concern. I am currently running a game where the GM notes work exactly as you state above, and it's also a railroad (which isn't implied by what you state above), and which has little to no protagonism, as defined previously in this thread. None of this phases me, it's an honest statement of what's happening at my table, and it doesn't phase me because we're having [I]fun[/I]. [/QUOTE]

Verification