Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Underman" data-source="post: 5986582" data-attributes="member: 6696705">Not to stir up more of the hornet's nest, but who elected the Forge as the official source for RPG terminology? If Alexander whoever-he-is wants to use differents terms, then that's his prerogative, isn't it? Until WoTC uses Forge terminology or the mainstream crowd chooses one over another, I think it's still a free-for-all.On first hearing, the phrase &quot;fortune-in-middle&quot; doesn't mean anything to me until you explain it, but the term itself doesn't evoke any meaning for me. &quot;Dissociated&quot; is more evocative of the meaning. That's probably why he chose it.Also, some (many?) posters clearly make a distinction between metagame vs ingame. That is, there is not such thing as a rule that is &quot;more&quot; metagame-y or &quot;less&quot; metagame-y -- that they are all metagame constructs. Like saying that fairies are more or less real than Santa. If that's true, you need some way to associate the metagame to the fiction, fitting the fluff to the crunch. I need a term to describe how &quot;close&quot; the mechanic feels to the ideal fluff I have in mind at any one time, and this term captures that goal for me. I'm sorry that it's pejorative to you, but it evokes the correct desire for me, and I don't even see it as pejorative any more than &quot;immersive&quot; or &quot;simulationist&quot; or &quot;gamist&quot; is pejorative. Either way it, it is what it is, the term is out there in the Ether, alongside the Forge terminology. Let the semantic battles commence! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> (but not me, I'm sitting on the sidelines)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Underman, post: 5986582, member: 6696705"] Not to stir up more of the hornet's nest, but who elected the Forge as the official source for RPG terminology? If Alexander whoever-he-is wants to use differents terms, then that's his prerogative, isn't it? Until WoTC uses Forge terminology or the mainstream crowd chooses one over another, I think it's still a free-for-all. On first hearing, the phrase "fortune-in-middle" doesn't mean anything to me until you explain it, but the term itself doesn't evoke any meaning for me. "Dissociated" is more evocative of the meaning. That's probably why he chose it. Also, some (many?) posters clearly make a distinction between metagame vs ingame. That is, there is not such thing as a rule that is "more" metagame-y or "less" metagame-y -- that they are all metagame constructs. Like saying that fairies are more or less real than Santa. If that's true, you need some way to associate the metagame to the fiction, fitting the fluff to the crunch. I need a term to describe how "close" the mechanic feels to the ideal fluff I have in mind at any one time, and this term captures that goal for me. I'm sorry that it's pejorative to you, but it evokes the correct desire for me, and I don't even see it as pejorative any more than "immersive" or "simulationist" or "gamist" is pejorative. Either way it, it is what it is, the term is out there in the Ether, alongside the Forge terminology. Let the semantic battles commence! :) (but not me, I'm sitting on the sidelines) [/QUOTE]

Verification