Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="darkbard" data-source="post: 7353529" data-attributes="member: 1282">Not just you, hawkeyefan, but several others here too. I'm home sick with the flu, so perhaps my patience is more limited than usual, but it feels like at several points this thread has clearly articulated ideas only to have it backslide into questions that have already been addressed numerous times. But your participation has been thoughtful and polite throughout, so I certainly didn't intend to insult you in turn.Again, my apologies if you feel I have insulted you in any way. I guess I just don't understand why many posters in this thread seem to think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is insulting their gameplay when he has gone out of his way to articulate his position as a personal preference and to express his opposition to GM-centered secret backstory gameplay as born not of an inherently flawed gameplay mode but rather one that limits player agency. One can certainly disagree with his position (although I think the analysis herein proves pretty convincing), but why take offense at such analysis?It all depends on how these are implemented at the table. If the GM uses such preparation as scene framing or the outcome of failed player action, then we're talking about the same thing: no secret backstory, player-centered gaming. If they're kept secret from the players until such a time as they nullify player goals and actions, then [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION], myself, and other advocates for player-driven &quot;story now&quot; games would take issue, questioning what purpose this serves (as in the OP).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="darkbard, post: 7353529, member: 1282"] Not just you, hawkeyefan, but several others here too. I'm home sick with the flu, so perhaps my patience is more limited than usual, but it feels like at several points this thread has clearly articulated ideas only to have it backslide into questions that have already been addressed numerous times. But your participation has been thoughtful and polite throughout, so I certainly didn't intend to insult you in turn. Again, my apologies if you feel I have insulted you in any way. I guess I just don't understand why many posters in this thread seem to think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is insulting their gameplay when he has gone out of his way to articulate his position as a [I]personal preference[/I] and to express his opposition to GM-centered secret backstory gameplay as born not of an inherently flawed gameplay mode but rather one that limits player agency. One can certainly disagree with his position (although I think the analysis herein proves pretty convincing), but why take offense at such analysis? It all depends on how these are implemented at the table. If the GM uses such [I]preparation[/I] as scene framing or the outcome of failed player action, then we're talking about the same thing: no secret backstory, player-centered gaming. If they're kept secret from the players until such a time as they nullify player goals and actions, then [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION], [MENTION=99817]chaochou[/MENTION], myself, and other advocates for player-driven "story now" games would take issue, questioning what purpose this serves (as in the OP). [/QUOTE]

Verification