Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7406126" data-attributes="member: 16814">Do you have me confused with someone else?&nbsp; You maybe fireball me banging really really hard on the chess vs checkers drink, or maybe that I'm currently running both a traditional 5e game and a Blades game?&nbsp; Or that I've also argued against traditionalists when they've misrepresented narrativst play?&nbsp; Yes?&nbsp; No?I can't think of a single thing that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has ever said that makes me uncomfortable.&nbsp; He's said things i disagree with, and, after a few rounds of back and forth I usually see where he's coming from, I find I often don't disagree with the core of his point but rather with the simplistic, broad-brush, highly negative way he&nbsp; presented it.&nbsp; The bit about reading to players things from the GM notes, for instance.&nbsp; He's got a point - a lot of traditional play does have the GM answering questions about the fiction as results of action declarations.&nbsp; But, the way he's defined &quot;from notes&quot; as anything made up by the DM as a response to action declarations ias so hopelessly vague that he's capturing gameplay from narrativist play as well and captures many moments of traditionalist play that are actually moving closer to narrativist play.&nbsp; That's counter productive because it's calling out some near similarities that could be used to bridge understanding and instead lumping them in with things that are most opposed. I say this as someone who made that jump and saw those similarities and differences. So, yeah, there I can agree with some underlying issues but the overall statement I cannot.Largely, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] comes across less as someone actually interested in advocating his playstyle and more like someone being aggressively defensive abbot their playstyle.&nbsp; From his statements, he clearly feels like his playstyle had been attacked in the past and he did not like it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7406126, member: 16814"] Do you have me confused with someone else? You maybe fireball me banging really really hard on the chess vs checkers drink, or maybe that I'm currently running both a traditional 5e game and a Blades game? Or that I've also argued against traditionalists when they've misrepresented narrativst play? Yes? No? I can't think of a single thing that [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] has ever said that makes me uncomfortable. He's said things i disagree with, and, after a few rounds of back and forth I usually see where he's coming from, I find I often don't disagree with the core of his point but rather with the simplistic, broad-brush, highly negative way he presented it. The bit about reading to players things from the GM notes, for instance. He's got a point - a lot of traditional play does have the GM answering questions about the fiction as results of action declarations. But, the way he's defined "from notes" as anything made up by the DM as a response to action declarations ias so hopelessly vague that he's capturing gameplay from narrativist play as well and captures many moments of traditionalist play that are actually moving closer to narrativist play. That's counter productive because it's calling out some near similarities that could be used to bridge understanding and instead lumping them in with things that are most opposed. I say this as someone who made that jump and saw those similarities and differences. So, yeah, there I can agree with some underlying issues but the overall statement I cannot. Largely, [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] comes across less as someone actually interested in advocating his playstyle and more like someone being aggressively defensive abbot their playstyle. From his statements, he clearly feels like his playstyle had been attacked in the past and he did not like it. [/QUOTE]

Verification