Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8669995" data-attributes="member: 85555">I think good faith and follow up questions can go a long way here. There are people who will universalize these things, and there are people who conflate their preferences with how things ought to be. Throughout this thread I've tried to make clear that I am talking about what takes me out of the moment personally, versus what I think are reasons some people might prefer mechanics for combat but no mechanics for social interaction. In some cases though you sleep into casual language. In terms of the whole 'point of roleplaying'. I don't think that is ever very fruitful in topics. Its why I don't like proscriptive definitions in these discussions either. Im happy to say why I game, but I think when we start setting up what the point of gaming is or what the meaning of the three letters in RPG amount to, it gets very prescriptive and is usually just used to hold up this style or that style of play. It is a broad medium that gets used in lots of different ways. When it comes to shaming a style of play, I tend to look at what someone's intentions seem to be. We generally are going to paint our style in positive language and styles we don't get or dislike in more neutral potentially negative language. I try not to, but even when I was bringing up the Sherlock Holmes example it occurred to me I was describing my preferred style as &quot;Being Sherlock Holmes&quot; (still I find that a useful way to describe the distinction I've noticed in preference). I don't think you are ever going to see a universal lexicon around play style, adventure structure, because things have all sprouted from numerous different pots.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8669995, member: 85555"] I think good faith and follow up questions can go a long way here. There are people who will universalize these things, and there are people who conflate their preferences with how things ought to be. Throughout this thread I've tried to make clear that I am talking about what takes me out of the moment personally, versus what I think are reasons some people might prefer mechanics for combat but no mechanics for social interaction. In some cases though you sleep into casual language. In terms of the whole 'point of roleplaying'. I don't think that is ever very fruitful in topics. Its why I don't like proscriptive definitions in these discussions either. Im happy to say why I game, but I think when we start setting up what the point of gaming is or what the meaning of the three letters in RPG amount to, it gets very prescriptive and is usually just used to hold up this style or that style of play. It is a broad medium that gets used in lots of different ways. When it comes to shaming a style of play, I tend to look at what someone's intentions seem to be. We generally are going to paint our style in positive language and styles we don't get or dislike in more neutral potentially negative language. I try not to, but even when I was bringing up the Sherlock Holmes example it occurred to me I was describing my preferred style as "Being Sherlock Holmes" (still I find that a useful way to describe the distinction I've noticed in preference). I don't think you are ever going to see a universal lexicon around play style, adventure structure, because things have all sprouted from numerous different pots. [/QUOTE]

Verification