Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7406000" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think that you frequently exhibit a habit of claiming an understanding which you then undermine by your attempt to construct an argument which doesn't actually work, but which you then in 'Emperor's New Clothes' fashion insists does work. We have to conclude there's something you aren't grasping, or else that you're just REALLY stubborn and don't like to change your mind. I think you are a contrarian to be honest, that you simply enjoy refusing to ever accept an alternative once you've found an argument which seems to contravene them, even if it becomes untenable.Honestly, I don't know what you are trying to DO, but the fact is, what the people are saying to each other in 'classic' play and in 'Story Now' play ARE DIFFERENT. They are different in content, different in game function, and different in intent. Of course there are some similarities, probably quite a lot of them, given that both techniques are part of a fairly limited type of activity, RPG playing. Its like basketball, a zone defense and a man-to-man defense are meaningfully different, but they're both part of the game which is played by the same rules either way. So they have a lot in common and sometimes it can be hard to say that a particular play belongs to one or the other technique. That doesn't make them the same! It isn't even particularly profound! Look, someone has to define terms, so this kind of thing is fairly silly. Nobody died and left you 'god of terminology in RPGs'. Nor would you have an easy time demonstrating that your preferred shades of meaning of terms which admit of a certain degree of ambiguity in practice are so canonical that using them in a slightly different way is unequivocally decreasing comprehension. The fact is, when someone advances a different theory of something, or even a different technique, often existing terminology is inadequate to explain it and can be ambiguous or even hold back the discussion. Thus when you encounter a set of ideas which are somewhat different from those you normally encounter it would be wise to consider how the terminology you are using is going to apply in that different paradigm. This is something that a number of people have consistently had trouble doing, and you're only one of them. I mean, when communicating, it is the responsibility of BOTH SIDES to attempt to be clear as well as true to their conceptual structure, the argument/position they are making/taking. Some of the things Pemerton says obviously make you uncomfortable, but its an open question whether he should not say them. Sometimes putting an idea in controversial terms is done to emphasize contrast, to focus attention on that idea, etc. In other words, when Pemerton says "declare actions to get the GM to say something" it clearly implies the resultant fiction which the GM says has specific characteristics and that is what is salient. Nor does it imply that ALL of the things that happen in the game consist only of this.</blockquote>

Verification