Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8240594" data-attributes="member: 16814">Does it?  I mean, pointing out that you serially misstate my name for the third time goes to show that I'm being adversarial?   I mean, that's like saying someone asking you to please stop punching them is just looking for a fight.Nope, this is a bald misrepresentation of what I've said.  What I've said is that you're using your preferences as a means to discount and dismiss analysis, which you seem to admit to, here.  What I've said is that analysis is a useful tool to understand preference and enhance play.  For instance, without any experience, you've dismissed an entire approach as "shallow" (man, talk about loaded words) when you have no experience to say so.  It's fine to think you won't like it, and no one's going to force you to try it, but you've removed yourself from any valid input when analysis involves comparing or contrasting with these approaches.  You're trying to shoehorn yourself into having a valid input by claiming that it's all preference, but it isn't. Whether or not you like it is preference -- how it works in process is not.Ah, here we go.  I am not to be taken as an honest participant while you are?  I might be making things up, and you seem to think this likely, because I'm saying things you're taking as dishonest and dismissive?  I mean, I'm extended every good faith -- it took three times of my broaching the subject of such a simple thing as my username before I moved to assuming you're doing it on purpose, which is apparently far more than you're willing to extend my claims on how I play.  It's fine for you to directly question my honesty because I guess you feel attacked, but I MUST assume your good faith at all times, or I'm just looking to be antagonistic?  Really?They aren't though, you're just resistant to hearing anything that is frank discussion of the processes of play.  You throw out the term "dissociative mechanics" as if it's something you will not abide, but you do -- you use armor class, you use hitpoints, you use spells.  These are all dissociated mechanics that either have a lampshade over them (spells are magic!) or that you're just used to and no longer notice (AC, hp).  These things fail to model anything, and are narrative devices in play, even if you build subsystems to try to mitigate this (like people changing the rest mechanics in 5e).  The reality is that your complaint is about authorities, not mechanics that don't reflect a simulated reality.  You don't like mechanics that let a player enforce something that you view is the GM's domain, like a secret door being present that the GM didn't prep beforehand, or doing damage on a "miss" (as if hit and miss aren't dissociated in D&D).  And, to be clear, not liking these things is fine, but it would be very beneficial, to you even, to deconstruct these things and look at what they are actually doing and why you do or do not like them.  Honesty here can be painful, it's can be hard to admit that you dislike something because you feel it intrudes into your privileges, but then you can reach a point where you realize even that concept is silly, and you're not really talking about your privileges but how privileges are distributed to achieve a specific play goal.  This is why I can say, without any feeling I'm doing something bad, that I'm running a hard railroad right now.  I'm not concerned if I'm stepping on my players toes or doing something wrong because we had a clear discussion of what this game will entail, what privileges will be where, and what our shared play goals are.  And those goals are skilled play scenes that are linked through an enforced plotline.  Easy, nothing to be concerned about, everyone is happy, and I'm not at all looking at anything like "dissociated mechanics" because that's a term that has no real meaning in an RPG -- it's all make-believe.  The trick is what tools exist for me to have the kind of make-believe I want, and there are absolutely mechanics that do this and mechanics that don't, so I'm going to pick and choose based not on some conception of "dissociation" with my make-believe, but rather which achieve my goals.And this is 100% hunky-dory, no issues at all with this statement.  I'm sure, though, that you'd call those elements "shallow" and not think twice about deploying a description others would find dismissive (and which you intend dismissively), but you'll certainly stand up if anyone uses "protagonism" and says your approach isn't that, because, I guess, "protagonist" is a word you think is "good" and so should be owned by your approach as well, because your approach is "good."  Meanwhile, you'll causally say that these other games, the ones you don't like, probably shouldn't even be considered to be real RPGs.</blockquote>

Verification