Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9319670" data-attributes="member: 42582">(1) Why wouldn't I just have that conversation with an actual friend?(2) What does what you're describing have to do with playing Call of Cthulhu? That could be a session of GURPS just as easily - it's just GM narration + players talking to one another while pretending to be someone else.I don't know what you mean by this. When I played The Green Knight, we played a game. There is a type of scoring and everything. No "gameworld" existed - just some situations.One of the players decided his Bard had travelled to Britain from Jerusalem. So I guess that made Jerusalem part of our gameworld? As per my reply just upthread to clearstream, Platonism in this domain is hopeless, It doesn't get off the ground. It doesn't even start moving down the taxi-way.Did you notice how you attribute to me something I didn't say. Here's what I posted:So see how I didn't say that RPGing is just conversation. I said it involves conversation. And I said it requires a way of working out new fictional stuff, especially what happens next. This is what Edwards and Baker call system.Something else I don't get, though - in addition to your false attribution of a view to me - is how you reconcile your denial that RPGs are not just conversations with your celebration of some RPGing that, by your own account of it, was nothing but conversation.What's "it"? I mean, obviously "it" includes the three sessions of CoC play "exploring" the "haunted house".But "exploring a gameworld" is not how my RPGing works.Once again, you deftly attribute views to other posters which they have not expressed. I said nothing about describing a room; nor anything about whether or not it's "problematic".It's very often boring, to me at least - both as player and as GM - but that's a different matter.Telling of what? What else would the gameworld be but fiction. It's something that people make up. That's the very definition of fiction!Hell, in a more charitable discussion you could actually argue the gameworld is the fiction is the gameworld, but the sheer distaste that comes with denying the whole point of one existing betrays any chance of that particular consensus being reached.I didn't state that I don't want to make anything up myself. What I actually posted was "I just don't want to exert my creative effort thinking up a 'crappy old house' that I gradually tell the players about, in response to their action declarations for their PCs, which actions the players are declaring because they believe that, or at least wonder whether, "what they are there for" will be revealed to them if only they declare some appropriate action to prompt the GM." That is a very specific thing I don't want to waste my time on.But you are correct that I have zero interest in playing an AP. A strong aversion, in fact.Instead of just making up random stuff and attributing it to me, you could actually read my actual play reports, of which there are dozens and dozens on these boards.I have no desire to worldbuild, collaboratively or otherwise.This makes me think that you have not really found what there is to be enjoyed in Agon. The conjecture that most players will interpret the signs the same way strikes me as completely implausible, given some of the diverse stuff I've seen in only a modest number of sessions of play. The suggestion that there is not much to do non the islands, and that they're purely linear, is also bizarre to me.Likewise, this suggest that you are playing Agon in a way completely different from how the rulebook suggests it should be played. I mean, what you describe here - assuming that by "revealed to the leader" you mean the GM narrated it in some fashion - is the GM taking over the players' job.That would help explain why you find the player linear, I guess!</blockquote>

Verification