Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 7415214" data-attributes="member: 85555">The problem in the conversation is the only thing being revealed to anyone is a few poster's conception of Story Now. And this is the only approach opponents are attempting to accurately describe. The issue isn't that style, Pemerton's definition of it, or anything like that. I have no objection to that style. But any other approaches are being dismissed. The only thing up for discussion it seems, is what is Pemerton and crew's understanding of story now. Any attempt to describe other play styles and other conceptions of character agency are dismissed or mischaracterized. It is just odd, that we seem to be perfectly capable of understanding what they are saying in their own terms. But our terms get twisted into something we didn't mean (and our very assumptions of what we experience at the table are called into question). It is as if the existence of free-open sandbox (or any variety of similar styles) are such a threat they can't acknowledge them. They have to define them away.And if the discussion &quot;What is world building for&quot; is really about getting people to adopt the GNS model, I think it is a misleading topic in general. Not that GNS has zero value. Just it isn't the only way to think of gaming, and I think most people have moved well past those kinds of arguments about design. These days there is much more of a 'the proof is in the pudding' approach. Nice sounding arguments do not matter as much as table play.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 7415214, member: 85555"] The problem in the conversation is the only thing being revealed to anyone is a few poster's conception of Story Now. And this is the only approach opponents are attempting to accurately describe. The issue isn't that style, Pemerton's definition of it, or anything like that. I have no objection to that style. But any other approaches are being dismissed. The only thing up for discussion it seems, is what is Pemerton and crew's understanding of story now. Any attempt to describe other play styles and other conceptions of character agency are dismissed or mischaracterized. It is just odd, that we seem to be perfectly capable of understanding what they are saying in their own terms. But our terms get twisted into something we didn't mean (and our very assumptions of what we experience at the table are called into question). It is as if the existence of free-open sandbox (or any variety of similar styles) are such a threat they can't acknowledge them. They have to define them away. And if the discussion "What is world building for" is really about getting people to adopt the GNS model, I think it is a misleading topic in general. Not that GNS has zero value. Just it isn't the only way to think of gaming, and I think most people have moved well past those kinds of arguments about design. These days there is much more of a 'the proof is in the pudding' approach. Nice sounding arguments do not matter as much as table play. [/QUOTE]

Verification