Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 8258079" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I didn't say that.&nbsp; You changed the ground rules.&nbsp;&nbsp; Read what I wrote again.I don't think anyone is disputing that you are making this point from your perspective.&nbsp; Some of us may have no experience of it but we aren't disputing that you are making that point.Well I should be careful because I can't be 100% sure that you specifically made erroneous comments about fiction.&nbsp;&nbsp; So let me state what I believe was said in this thread.The fiction is the shared experience of the characters and GM.&nbsp;&nbsp; Is this right?&nbsp;&nbsp; If so then I dispute your definition is the English language definition.No I just replied to you recently.&nbsp; You wrote it down.&nbsp; Two easy to understand points.Do you suppose that if ten people took turns extending a story that it would be as coherent as something authored carefully over time?&nbsp;&nbsp; As I'm building my world, prior to campaign start, I can decide something doesn't fit and change it after I've done more work.&nbsp; I can &quot;refactor&quot; things until I get them where I want them before starting the game.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can't imagine just answering questions off the cuff would be as consistent.&nbsp;&nbsp; I mean there are arguments for your style.&nbsp; I don't think arguing the consistency line would be a good one to take.&nbsp;&nbsp; Argue the freedom of choosing as you go and the organic discovery of new things.&nbsp;&nbsp; That might be a positive for your style at least in your players eyes I'd think.&nbsp;&nbsp; There is an art of choosing what to prep and what not to prep.&nbsp;&nbsp; Where do you draw the line.&nbsp; yes but if I've handed a religion pamphlet to my cleric player and his beliefs are that it is Apollo then he may feel good about being able to say &quot;Ah Apollo shines forth upon us all&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; To be honest, almost everything I feel that way about.&nbsp; I feel if I were making it up as I go it would be of inferior quality.&nbsp; The first thing that pops into my head is not always the best thing.&nbsp; One style is perhaps more appropriate.&nbsp; I've played a variety of games of that style.&nbsp; I find a lot of these games to be academically interesting.&nbsp; There could be a time and place where they might be a fun thing to do.&nbsp;&nbsp; Over the course of a few years, every week?&nbsp; No.&nbsp; I don't think that would be very satisfying.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 8258079, member: 6698278"] I didn't say that. You changed the ground rules. Read what I wrote again. I don't think anyone is disputing that you are making this point from your perspective. Some of us may have no experience of it but we aren't disputing that you are making that point. Well I should be careful because I can't be 100% sure that you specifically made erroneous comments about fiction. So let me state what I believe was said in this thread. The fiction is the shared experience of the characters and GM. Is this right? If so then I dispute your definition is the English language definition. No I just replied to you recently. You wrote it down. Two easy to understand points. Do you suppose that if ten people took turns extending a story that it would be as coherent as something authored carefully over time? As I'm building my world, prior to campaign start, I can decide something doesn't fit and change it after I've done more work. I can "refactor" things until I get them where I want them before starting the game. I can't imagine just answering questions off the cuff would be as consistent. I mean there are arguments for your style. I don't think arguing the consistency line would be a good one to take. Argue the freedom of choosing as you go and the organic discovery of new things. That might be a positive for your style at least in your players eyes I'd think. There is an art of choosing what to prep and what not to prep. Where do you draw the line. yes but if I've handed a religion pamphlet to my cleric player and his beliefs are that it is Apollo then he may feel good about being able to say "Ah Apollo shines forth upon us all". To be honest, almost everything I feel that way about. I feel if I were making it up as I go it would be of inferior quality. The first thing that pops into my head is not always the best thing. One style is perhaps more appropriate. I've played a variety of games of that style. I find a lot of these games to be academically interesting. There could be a time and place where they might be a fun thing to do. Over the course of a few years, every week? No. I don't think that would be very satisfying. [/QUOTE]

Verification