Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7354098" data-attributes="member: 16814">I did answer the question asked, clearly and in the part you quote:  it would serve no purpose.  If you'd like to redirect to a different question, then, like you note, I point you to many previous points in this thread, some made by me, many by others, that address the questions you pose.  I don't understand why you're trying to state what another poster actually meant when his statement was clear and unambiguous.So, to understand, you agree with me, and then say that DM facing games are more limited.  I disagree, as the limits that have been discussed focus entirely on analysis from the assumptions that support player facing play.  Yes, being able to author fiction into the narrative is more agency for authoring fiction, but you're also then limited to only being able to do so in response to DM framed crisis points.  IE, you exercise more control over authorship at the expense of accepting that the DM will always frame you into crisis points.  You lose control over pacing of the advance of the fiction (you can't choose to avoid crisis points, as this defeats the purpose of play) and you lose control over the stakes, as the crisis the DM presents carries inherent dangers.  You also lose control over your character actions, as the DM can frame situations with assumptions of your character's actions and can frame failures as assumptions of your characters actions.A good example of this is the engagement roll in Blades, the players define the general type of score they want and provide a specific (target, access point, etc) they want, but then the roll happens and the DM frames the scene by assuming character actions to fit the roll - the players never declare actions to reach this framing, they're placed there, in crisis, and have to react.  This kind of thing doesn't happen in the Gygaxian play proposed as exemplifying secret backstory -- the players always maintain complete agency over their character's actions, and control the fiction via that constant agency.  This means many decisions are smaller in scope and stakes, and most generate new narration by the DM, but they do not lose agency of their character actions (except through explicit mechanics). If some people have red hair, I cannot say describe the general condition of hair as red.  That is false.  Just like you're bad experiences with a lousy DM (again, I am sorry you suffered) do not mean that the style employed is always what you experienced.  This is, again, going from the specific to the general, something you should not do.Actually, comments by [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] and [MENTION=1282]darkbard[/MENTION] have strongly implied they see the style as always going bad.  Darkbard with the 'temptation to use it more and more' comments and pemerton with the repeated characterization of the style as a 'choose-your-own-adventure' book.In order of asking:Because it's a niche-game concept and it differs from the predominate style.  Most of the scorn is due to how the proponents of the style often display it as superior or fixing the problems of the DM facing style.  You usually don't do this, and so receive less pushback.  [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] often does this, I think because he's not very good at articulating his thoughts and actually does hold that his method delivers superior results, so it bleed through.It doesn't.  But [-]edition[/-] style wars are two sided.  And, if you're challenging the zeitgeist, it pays to not do it in a way that comes across as superior.  People tend to identify with their hobby to a great degree, so questioning how they enjoy their hobby seems like you're questioning them.  If they play in a way you characterize as having less agency (implied bad thing) then you're saying that they like things that are bad.  Is this rational?  Not really, but it is how human people tend to think and entangle their emotions, especially today.  I'm not the least affected by how you or someone else chooses to play, and I hope I've come across as someone interested in getting to actual discussion rather than the superficial handwaving that mostly goes on in this topic, but I'll admit I get sometimes a bit worked up not because my gaming choices are questioned but because I'm frustrated by bad rhetoric, which, sadly, is endemic to forum discussions.As I've said, I think agency is largely similar in good examples of both styles.  The kind of agency differs, but both styles give up agency in one arena to increase it in another.  I think that's largely invisible to the proponents of each style because the agency they sacrifice is less important to them than the agency they retain.  I don't think you'd consider it an impact to your agency to have the DM frame you into a situation that has to assume actions by your character, so long as those actions are at least nearly in alignment with your concepts and the purpose is to get to the action.  I know other players that would howl at the DM assuming any action on the part of their character, even to get to the action.  Similarly, I have a player that absolutely dislikes players being able to author fiction into the game, especially if that fiction affects them.  For them, the world is a puzzle and they trust an impartial DM to set up that puzzle and then fairly adjudicate their solving of it.  They like combat best.  To them, giving up agency over authoring the fiction isn't a sacrifice, it's preferred.  Clearly, this is not something [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] or you would accept, having a great deal of your enjoyment tied into the agency to create new fiction.The concepts here really are chess vs checkers.  They look superficially similar (same board, same number of pieces, same general objective, both as war surrogates), but they behave in ways that are very different.  I think you can come up with checkers games that have some chess moves, and chess games that have some checkers moves, but there isn't a middle point (this is a change from my earlier thinking).  I think it's a critical mistake to judge play in one with the metrics and assumptions of another.  The similarities will fool you into thinking you can do this, so long as you ignore the crucial differences.  And that's something people in general are good at doing:  confirmation bias is a thing we all do and must guard against.As someone that enjoys both playstyles, and tries to stretch themselves, this is the best framework for the discussion I can create.  It doesn't denigrate or dismiss any style and I think it's a good tool that explains why we have so much trouble discussing these differences -- we're often mired in one way of thinking and try to fit new concepts into our existing conceptualization.</blockquote>

Verification