Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8261361" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm sure you think we're having fun.  But fun is not something I'm interested in talking about.  That goes nowhere.I'm interested in how the actual machinery of play (the structure of the rules, the focus of the play agenda, the guiding and constraining principles, the procedures that generate content) creates and changes (a) the gamestate, (b) the stuff we're imagining, and (c) the orientation of the participants toward (a) and (b).Some of that is going to be native to the players themselves for one reason or another (neurological predisposition is no doubt a big part of it).  But, like fun, that isn't a particularly interesting thing to talk about.  So I'm more interested in talking about (a), (b), and (c) across a healthy population distribution of participants.Like for instance, as you mentioned above, there is no doubt in my mind you would hate being a part of any of the 4 (soon to be 5) games I'm running.  Each of these games have subtly different chemistry/alchemy due to the nature of the participants involved.  But there is a clear and present through line in all of those games (driven by the signal of that a - c above) that would surely make it so Emerikol of the internet would find it impossible to enjoy.  The only feeling about that I have is "that is unfortunate".  I mean, I'd invite you to play in a game I'm GMing, but I'm confident your misery would be an implacable force that makes misery of the entire experience for all involved (like the other night when I was running Blades and the leader of a gang was sword-fighting the ghost of the former gang leader that she murdered in a coup...there were aspects of that sword fight where I'm confident that Emerikol of the internet would have found "jarring").I totally understand your neurological disposition toward this stuff.  As I've mentioned above, one of my best friends is exactly the same way you are (and you and I have had tons of discussions these last almost 9 years so I'm confident I've got your hardware pinned down pretty well).  But, again, your orientation toward this stuff (like my best friend) is native to you.  Across a large distribution of participants, there will be no evidence of some objective property of play that should engender the disposition that you guys share.  Its the way you're wired (to orient yourself toward stimuli from a very specific angle, model it in a very specific way, and then resolve your collisions with it through that very specific lens...if there is any deviation from that array, you guys "go on tilt" to use the poker euphemism).</blockquote>

Verification