I´d like just to point out the fact that instead of adressing the salient point, two_fishes chooses to brainfart.

Let´s recap: We have the postulate, that people use the word "fiction" as an ideological term. The underlying ideology is proven to be destructive to the hobby and especially any meaningful debate about gaming. As is just the case in this very thread!

And we have strong evidence of ideological self-indoctrination and adoption of said ideology by the individual in question.

This equals "speaking moon", see above.

These salient poitns have not been adressed by the individual calling himself two_fishes. Instead we know only about his meddlings with 7 year olds and his TV set. Two things that followers of said ideology are pretty much addicted to, it seems.

Returning to the 4e DMG 2, it is very clear that the proposed techniques are an outcrop of institutionalized misunderstandings about the process and aim of RPG games themselves, as well as a crass misinterpretation of gaming population´s practices.

This is only mellowed by the fact that a non-fundamentalist seemingly paralell praxis of player input already exists at most tables.
Much like the "story concentration" that implicitly and explicitly was to be found in the 2e DMG.

Both instances are dangerous in those moments were wrong paralellisms are drawn and fundamentalist perceptions of the texts in question gain a following. This haas caused and will caused dysfunctional gaming.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;364254To begin with, while it's true that calculating decisions in the midst of melee isn't very realistic, it doesn't interrupt the illusion of immersion because frankly, people aren't aware of the falsity of the representation.

They're not? When I'm playing my Gnome Bard, I don't think to myself, "What the hell am I doing in the middle of a combat?"

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;364254Secondly, challenge the players doesn't really, or necessarily, refer to metagaming at all. It just means that the players will have to figure things out and describe their actions as if they were actually there, instead of relying on skill rolls.

You mean instead of acting in character and relying on their character to figure things out, right?

Seanchai

Quote from: Settembrini;364260Let´s recap: We have the postulate, that people use the word "fiction" as an ideological term.

Quote from: two_fishes;363766no, you idiot, you were wrong. i'm just not willing to repeat myself for the benefit of a few assholes. if you had actually read my last few exchanges with David R, it would be obvious that was not my intent with the word fiction at all.

Quote from: two_fishes;363458Maybe it's the word fiction that's causing a misunderstanding, with its connotations of story. I'm trying to use it to say players try to control pieces of what happens in the made-up stuff that all members of the group are collaboratively creating. Rules and dice limit what they are allowed to say. Any time a player describes anything in the made-up stuff, there's intent to change the made-up stuff. Participating in the game is influencing the fiction.

Quote from: two_fishes;363481But regardless of the intent of the player --and it feels dumb to say this but--stuff is being made up! When Benoist says players roleplaying depicts actual events as they occur, well... it doesn't! That's wrong! Role-playing depicts imagined events as they're imagined to occur. If you're describing what is actually going on at a roleplaying table, it's a group of players making stuff up. Who gets to make up what is adjudicated by the rules and by the custom of the group.

So, you moron, you were wrong. I was, in this case, very clearly and explicitly not using the word in any ideological sense.

Actually you have PROVEN my point! Again!

Indeed, he has. It's lumpley/anyway rhetorical BS 101. Mistaking the map for the territory, etc.

He even said creative agenda.

You get all the fun ones, sett.

RPGPundit