Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7408281" data-attributes="member: 85555">I am not interested in debating you Pemerton. I've seen enough of your posts over the years to know what the deal is here (and I also know what you are saying most of the time doesn't pan out at my actual table, no matter how well constructed your arguments are). You do it through definitions. You take something that is positive (like player agency) and define it such a way that it completely matches your style, and then wonder aloud why a more common and widespread play style doesn't seem to have it (and you then your surprised when people take issue with it). Player Agency is a term that means lots of things. And it isn't widely used the way you are using it. It is like taking a word like 'railroad' and arguing that play styles that don't give players GM-like&nbsp; control over the setting (or if you prefer 'the fiction'), are always railroads. If you make that case, it shouldn't be a surprise that people find your attitude toward other play styles dismissive and even hostile. It is up there with arguing that real sandboxes don't exist. It is a disingenuous argument. You are a good debater. You are intelligent. But I think there are a lot of things you do rhetorically that are pretty shady in these discussions. It is obvious that I mean PCs. It is the sort of thing readers and listeners should be able to discern from context. It doesn't require building a new lexicon or always being super precise about the division when it is clear a person is talking about a player character.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 7408281, member: 85555"] I am not interested in debating you Pemerton. I've seen enough of your posts over the years to know what the deal is here (and I also know what you are saying most of the time doesn't pan out at my actual table, no matter how well constructed your arguments are). You do it through definitions. You take something that is positive (like player agency) and define it such a way that it completely matches your style, and then wonder aloud why a more common and widespread play style doesn't seem to have it (and you then your surprised when people take issue with it). Player Agency is a term that means lots of things. And it isn't widely used the way you are using it. It is like taking a word like 'railroad' and arguing that play styles that don't give players GM-like control over the setting (or if you prefer 'the fiction'), are always railroads. If you make that case, it shouldn't be a surprise that people find your attitude toward other play styles dismissive and even hostile. It is up there with arguing that real sandboxes don't exist. It is a disingenuous argument. You are a good debater. You are intelligent. But I think there are a lot of things you do rhetorically that are pretty shady in these discussions. It is obvious that I mean PCs. It is the sort of thing readers and listeners should be able to discern from context. It doesn't require building a new lexicon or always being super precise about the division when it is clear a person is talking about a player character. [/QUOTE]

Verification