Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7396600" data-attributes="member: 16814">That was a way fast flip from saying that backstory cannot be part of action declaration or the article is incoherent to saying that the actual definition of backstory isn't important to the article, just this thread.You have been reading that article with the same kinds of justification lenses that [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION] has been using -- scanning and interpreting so that it supports your arguments.  Honestly, I blame this on the need to look to this article as some kind of authority statement, thereby pushing people to interpret a lazily written (Eero's description, by the way) blog post on a niche aspect of how some mechanics are universally applicable to all games.  So what's been happening is an increasing calcification of definitions and spins so that what is said both supports the views expressed and can still be made to match the cited authority.  It's ridiculous.The example of searching for a secret door and a success meaning that there is a secret door there is an exercise of backstory creation.  THIS IS FINE!The example of spouting lore about moon cultists is an example of backstory creation.  THIS IS FINE!Nothing about either of these examples introducing new backstory invalidates or weakens the games they can occur in.  It doesn't make them poorer or richer, itjust  makes them them.  Those games are built with this kind of thing at the foundation, and are well conceived to allow that kind of move at the table.  This doesn't conflict at all with Eero's blog post, and everyone needs to step back and recognize it doesn't.  Everyone needs to stop trying to justify why their mode of play is better for anyone other than them -- that Story Now and/or traditional D&D play are both valid, acceptable, and useful ways to play that cannot be directly compared.  I brought up chess and checkers so many time but everyone just seems intent on figuring out how the other game is lesser because it doesn't allow for the moves in their favorite games.  To this we've had messed up definitions of backstory, agency, advocacy, world building, you name it, all in an attempt to pin down a rhetoric point that show that, in this case, with these assumptions, my way is better.  Not better for me, but just better.  I have more of this word, as defined this way.  This is counterproductive and, frankly, assinine.  There's only an occasional attempt, often by a new participant, to engage in understanding, but the usual suspects just drive those post right back into the definitional wars on which style can eek out a win in this esoteric column.  "I have more agency over the fiction!"  "Sure, but you do that by sharing some narration."  "NO, I don't, because action declarations cannot be shared narration or have any backstory because... blah blah blah."  Guess what, action declarations can have plenty to do with sharing narration and backstory, and THAT'S FINE!  On the other side, it's "But you just put players into situations where they might have wanted to doing something else and that's RAILROADING!"  Guess what?  It's not, because the players signed up for that kind of play.  They aren't playing to be cautious explorers of the intersections and sneakers-up on giants.  They players are getting EXACTLY the game they want.  If they want to be sneaky, then they have every opportunity to declare this as part of their interests, and then call the GM out if he screws it up.  And not in the 4 second interruption window, but as a function of what they've established as important to them.And the Pippin thing?  Good grief.  "My way can cause that outcome better than your way!"  Seriously?  You're trying to figure out what system can cause that specific outcome and arguing over that?!  Both will create a story with regards to the situation in Gondor and the player's goals if played with integrity.  Can you really say that you, as a GM, would be so likely to frame the exact situations that allow the Pippen player to declare actions that will resolve properly to gain that result and also say that a traditional DM could not do so?  That's hubristic and believing far too much in the superiority of your playstyle -- a playstyle that specifically avoid assumptions about outcomes, yet here we are, arguing which playstyle can best replicate the specific outcome of a novel.  Ridiculous doesn't even get close to it.For what it's worth, I have a a few more sessions of BitD under the belt, it's going swimmingly and everyone's having a complete blast being scoundrels.  We have a character building a mechanical hull for the ghost of his childhood dog, the crew getting even more wrapped up in weirdness from their now allies the witches Dimmer, and a brewing war between the group and a neighborhood that was roughly treated by them.  And the streets are getting even more dangerous as the background gang war heats up and the Lampblacks are becoming desperate.  On the other hand, I just ran a modified version of Sunless Citadel for my regular 5e group, which includes all of my Blades players, and we had another blast as attempts to bluff through guard posts failed and now the kobolds are in fighting retreat back to more defensible positions and setting up ambushes on the fly in a long, combat time play (we've passed a minute and a half of combat time now, and the fight's still on, yay kobolds!).  It doesn't matter what you're playing, neither is the better style -- the better style is the one you're having fun playing.  Everyone needs to step back and figure out if you're trying to help others see how much fun you have and why or if you're just trying to defend your method as superior in the face of someone with a different set of ideas.</blockquote>

Verification