Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7396525" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think you must have forgotten how that part of the thread went, we're not going to re-litigate it here, but your position on this was reduced to utter ridiculousness. Of course you have to care about the process, otherwise you could care less what the player's experience of the game is AT ALL??!!! Don't lets even contemplate going back to this sad chapter! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />OK, and now you just totally contradicted your last statement! I'm confused...Except of course they are not unavoidable, nor inevitable. I actually contend, and have contended all thread, that any illusion of consistency based on world building or other pre-authored content is totally illusory.I disagree that he's got some bizarre definition. I explained it quite clearly, and if you do a careful reading of the essay we're talking about you find that, in fact, that's the only consistent reading. Backstory is what was done previous to play, 'in the background'. If something is invented DURING play, yes, it may have some sort of &quot;game world historic&quot; implication (IE the secret door was always there, someone must have built it 100 years ago) but the players are not engaging in a process of writing stories about what happened 100 years ago. They are engaging in a process of resolving a story that is happening RIGHT NOW. So labeling what they're doing when they search for the secret door &quot;writing backstory&quot; is silly. Can you see my point? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is being simply incredibly obtuse by insisting on this reading, it doesn't even make sense in the context of the rest of the essay. I can only conclude that his reading of it is either strange, or superficial.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7396525, member: 82106"] I think you must have forgotten how that part of the thread went, we're not going to re-litigate it here, but your position on this was reduced to utter ridiculousness. Of course you have to care about the process, otherwise you could care less what the player's experience of the game is AT ALL??!!! Don't lets even contemplate going back to this sad chapter! ;) OK, and now you just totally contradicted your last statement! I'm confused... Except of course they are not unavoidable, nor inevitable. I actually contend, and have contended all thread, that any illusion of consistency based on world building or other pre-authored content is totally illusory. I disagree that he's got some bizarre definition. I explained it quite clearly, and if you do a careful reading of the essay we're talking about you find that, in fact, that's the only consistent reading. Backstory is what was done previous to play, 'in the background'. If something is invented DURING play, yes, it may have some sort of "game world historic" implication (IE the secret door was always there, someone must have built it 100 years ago) but the players are not engaging in a process of writing stories about what happened 100 years ago. They are engaging in a process of resolving a story that is happening RIGHT NOW. So labeling what they're doing when they search for the secret door "writing backstory" is silly. Can you see my point? [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] is being simply incredibly obtuse by insisting on this reading, it doesn't even make sense in the context of the rest of the essay. I can only conclude that his reading of it is either strange, or superficial. [/QUOTE]

Verification