A question on a fundamental, whether it's taken as a given and taught by default
Filip Luszczyk:
Raven,
Quote
Consider the reaction to your attempt to discuss...whatever...isn't that everyone is running away from looking at some idea they all hold sacred, but that you haven't clearly explained what it is you want to talk about. At all.
Consider that this is your personal perception. Callan's posts in general, and here in particular, come out as rather clear to me. The explanation appears adequate. I believe it's not about Callan's explanation, but the way you decided to read it.
Moreno R.:
Callan, in Primetime Adventures, you get no +2 bonus if you are on higher ground.
Callan, in Dogs in the Vineyard you get no +2 bonus if you are on higher ground.
Did you ever play them? From your post, really, it seems you are talking about D&D ONLY, but you don't want to admit it and continue instead to rant about "forge sacred cows".
What I am getting from this thread, is that you don't know many "forge games" at all.
Can you PLEASE tell us what specifics "forge game" you are talking about?
It's like ranting about "english games" where "yoir character has to be a human or an elf". And then you refuse to say to anyone what you are talking about...
Callan S.:
Raven, from your first post I thought you weren't even humouring as a side possiblity the original post was entirely sufficient and it's actually your understanding was lacking. But I wasn't sure so I left it. But now you make clear your certain your understanding could not be lacking at all. And your reading my post as if I'm only considering that ya'll have sacred cows, then telling me that's what I said. No, I'm considering both possibilities at the same time and I said that and I don't like words being put in my mouth on top of all this.
This is exactly the 'open to discussion' I dread - and I think Filip refered to a problem like it as well.
If there is a AP thread, participants will have the requirement to be able to mull over, even if they don't really honestly believe it, that the information is sufficient and they don't get it...otherwise they can take their caps lock elsewhere and write up their own AP threads.
M.J.,
Quote
It's specifically the kind of question that goes to the social contract of the specific gaming group as impacted by the authority of the documents that attempt to represent the game.
I think that's a seperate subject - what happens when a written document lands in the lap of a certain group. They might just wallpaper their room with the pages, for example, despite what you intended as designer.
I'm talking about how we as designers think it works and what were passing on to each other and in the designs being made.
Moreno,
Again I'm having words put into my mouth - I'm not accusing people of this, I'm asking - do the bulk of designers here treat 'refering to high ground' as the same as 'refering to a roulette wheel'? As in both can be refered to as much as the other? I'm actually hoping no and that there is no sacred cow - but you can't find out if no one will even consider if it's there. Further 'higher ground' is short hand for a large number of mechanics - could be whether you get a +2 bonus on your diplomacy skill roll, or climbing roll. Or whether you get a roll at all. You know I'm using it as short hand to refer to alot of texts in game books?
Anyway, time gentleman. Weve gone through the usual prod and personal reaction that sets the mod swooping in to close the thread. The thread that prompted someone, for some reason, to prod when normally they don't prod. The threads closed - post a wrap up post if you want to, cause I always hate it when someone closes a thread and I can't wrap up.
greyorm:
Quote from: Callan S. on April 30, 2010, 05:42:54 PM
Raven, from your first post I thought you weren't even humouring as a side possiblity the original post was entirely sufficient and it's actually your understanding was lacking. But I wasn't sure so I left it. But now you make clear your certain your understanding could not be lacking at all. And your reading my post as if I'm only considering that ya'll have sacred cows, then telling me that's what I said. No, I'm considering both possibilities at the same time and I said that and I don't like words being put in my mouth on top of all this.
Callan, my first post was an open statement I didn't get what you were talking about asking for clarification. I asked for AP because that seemed an appropriate way to figure out what it was you were talking about or wanted to discuss. I said up-front that I didn't understand and admitted my lack of understanding. Your response to that was to say you didn't need to reframe it for anyone because clearly it was pointless to do so. In other words, your response was to be a jerk. And, yeah, that made me a little huffy.
When I say again, emphatically, that I don't get what it is you're trying to say, and maybe you might want to consider the idea that it isn't about people refusing to listen but people not grasping what you're saying, you again make out the fact I'm not getting it to be some kind of asinine put-down wherein I'm waving around my superior understanding??
Listen, I'm sorry if I'm too stupid to understand your perfectly clear first post on whatever the hell the issue you want to talk about is, and I'm sorry if asking for clarification or reframing of that is a personal insult to you in some way. Clearly, the miscommunication here is entirely my fault and problem and you are entirely without blame and should do nothing differently than you have done already. Sorry. I apologize.
Ron Edwards:
Stop now.
I am moderating.
I said, "Take it to Actual Play." That is the final word. All other discussion here is out of line.
Best, Ron
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page