Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7410207" data-attributes="member: 85555">I definitely think there are questionable arguments being made in that respect (I think my posts have made that clear). But I think the larger problem there is his reducing our position and our definition to &quot;a player character taking an action&quot;. They don't want our kind of agency in their games. I am not interested in converting people to my style of play. If they don't want what I like in a game, that is their business. I have no interest in trying to convince them to adopt what I do. All I care about in these conversations is we allow for the multitude of play style and that people don't try to weasel their play style into other peoples' tables by making bad linguistic arguments. If they are finding pleasure in the kind of agency Pemerton is talking about. more power to them. If others see that and think it is something they might like, more power to them. I just don't want them misrepresenting what we mean by agency. We've stated out definition multiple times and it keeps getting met with &quot;so you mean any kind of roleplaying that happens in 100% of all campaigns anyways.&quot; or some variation on that. That is the infuriating bit. I guess what bothers me in so many of these discussion is it is almost like people are trying to take away what pleasure others have found at the table. It would be one thing to say &quot;Hey I have this cool style of play, here is how it works, give it a shot&quot;. But so many&nbsp; of these conversations feel like attempts to convert people to a religion. It is just a game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 7410207, member: 85555"] I definitely think there are questionable arguments being made in that respect (I think my posts have made that clear). But I think the larger problem there is his reducing our position and our definition to "a player character taking an action". They don't want our kind of agency in their games. I am not interested in converting people to my style of play. If they don't want what I like in a game, that is their business. I have no interest in trying to convince them to adopt what I do. All I care about in these conversations is we allow for the multitude of play style and that people don't try to weasel their play style into other peoples' tables by making bad linguistic arguments. If they are finding pleasure in the kind of agency Pemerton is talking about. more power to them. If others see that and think it is something they might like, more power to them. I just don't want them misrepresenting what we mean by agency. We've stated out definition multiple times and it keeps getting met with "so you mean any kind of roleplaying that happens in 100% of all campaigns anyways." or some variation on that. That is the infuriating bit. I guess what bothers me in so many of these discussion is it is almost like people are trying to take away what pleasure others have found at the table. It would be one thing to say "Hey I have this cool style of play, here is how it works, give it a shot". But so many of these conversations feel like attempts to convert people to a religion. It is just a game. [/QUOTE]

Verification