Quote from: tenbones;939065I totally support those writers and their success (they have a direct impact on my livelihood). But can we agree that being monetarily successful is not the sole arbiter of what is "good" in a craft. or No?

Michael Bay makes generally bad movies. Some of them are awesomely fun, others are pure shit. But he's fantastically successful. None of which makes him a great film-maker. Same goes for whatever passes for over-produced top-40 music. Fun, financially successful, sure. But is it "good" by whatever standards one wishes to use? See this is where discerning folks put their chips on the table of examining opinions in light of whatever facts they want to back up their claims. This is where the discussion happens. People not capable of having those discussions just fall back on their "feelings", which really means any form of honest discussion is not really on the agenda.

I think it's a mistake to equate the quality of ones work with their identity as a person. I don't dislike *anyone* because they're successful at finding an audience for their wares. I do think that when third-parties start taking offense that someone doesn't like what they like and don't have the ability to actually have that discussion as to "why" it speaks more of their immaturity than anything else. Same goes for that person who hinges their self-worth on an activity they pursue that they might not be as good at as they actually are (Uwe Boll - are you reading this?) and of course other obvious parties. Because they're intellectually dishonest with themselves on many levels, they will be intellectually dishonest to everyone else too.

Edit: the same principle applies to people that use "storytime" as a their means of expressing how they GM. If it works for them and their group - great. But that's analogous to saying "My Big Fat Greek Wedding" which grossed $241-million dollars is a better movie than "Goodfellas" $46-million dollars. There is definitely a discussion worth having there if this is to be believed.

Nah, this puts you into that subset of pretentious gamers out there with their over inflated sense of self importance.  
You know the type,  they have an opinion on nearly every topic and have no issues climbing onto that soapbox to let everyone know just how important their opinions are.

I'm waiting for the day when you post anything that resembles your opinion on a subject rather than a comment on someone else's opinions.

You know how other sites have scripts that turn one word or phrase into another?

We need one that takes everything Sommerjon posts and turns it into "No. Fuck you."  because really, out of 1477 posts, probably 1473 of them are some variation of that.

Quote from: Nexus;939068AFIAC, the measure of "good" is in the eye of the beholder. I can't stand Meyer's writing myself.  It just amuses me when popular writers, film makers, etc get trashed as objectively horrible online. Some like them, some don't.

Sure sure of course! But don't you think there is level of objectivity in assigning values to things? Meyer's writing is grammatically horrible. The structure of her story is shit. The narrative is shit as it's full of dumb plotholes. This doesn't mean that the story didn't speak to people that had fun with it despite those things. Nothing about the former makes the latter untrue.

The Wright Bros. made a PIECE OF SHIT aeroplane. But that piece of shit flew. It's *not* an F-16. But no one is denying they're both airplanes. I'm saying there is a value-judgement to be made on the criteria for what is "good" vs. "less-good". That same principle can be done with GMing, and RPG's in general. And yes intent of play matters and where you wish to rest your chip on personal satisfaction matters - but those things don't remove the objective facts.

My analogy remains - Grove's group might like taking short-flights around their island in his Cessna. GREAT! I'm suggesting to his persistent questions that his issues can be resolved using methods that the Cessna simply wouldn't be an optimal choice. Conversely where his Cessna-mastery isn't even in question (by me) - I liken my campaigns compared to the examples he's giving to the space portion of the Battle of Endor using X-wings and TIE-Fighters. I couldn't use his Cessna methods to do that. Nor would my players be happy puttering around in a Cessna in space while I'd be forced to narrate 90% of my game to them simply because I was too scared or incapable of letting my players run wild and free to do what they wanted in context of the game.

If I tried to do that it would make my fucking head explode because at scale it would render their PC's meaningless. Which ultimately is my point of why using heavy narrative in my games is almost non-existent. You *can't* have large epic-scale sand-box style games - or even small ones - doing heavy-narrative. The *larger* point of all of this is - Grove is the one asking the questions. We're just answering. I have *none* of the problems he has. So they logically *can't* be equal in opinion - otherwise why would these questions even be asked?

I'm not saying using heavy narrative is wrong. If that's your thing - go for it. But it's limited by dint of the fact that *one* person is curating the experience. It simply creates a more limited set of parameters of what's possible in group-play. I fully concede it has a potential positive in that it probably reduces the chances of TPK's and other negative stuff. But for the kind of games I run - that "other stuff" and TPK's are part of the gig to achieve what I consider those "high peaks" you simply can't get through heavy narrative style play.

Grove takes this to be demeaning because he's apparently aghast that I think it's "basic". Well, it is. It's safer. It takes far less chances because it's ultimately I could do "narrative" style GMing with zero-prep... and technically I actually do it with zero-players as I'm writing a book.

Quote from: One Horse Town;939088I'm waiting for the day when you post anything that resembles your opinion on a subject rather than a comment on someone else's opinions.

Why Billy, what ever is wrong with commenting on someone's opinion?  That is part of discussion you know.
It is scrumptious of you to comment on my comment.

Okay here you go.

There are two distinct definitions of 'roleplay' used here that have very different meanings, yet noone ever acknowledges which one they are referring to.

Version One Roleplay: playing the role of (i.e. Cris is playing the role of the Magic User)

Version Two Roleplay: playing the distinct character (i.e. Brother Bunion Bethel, Bürgermeister of Battenberg)

Quote from: Sommerjon;939085Nah, this puts you into that subset of pretentious gamers out there with their over inflated sense of self importance.  
You know the type,  they have an opinion on nearly every topic and have no issues climbing onto that soapbox to let everyone know just how important their opinions are.

Vs. what? You? Do you represent the antithesis of what you quoted? Then I'm doing just fine.

Quote from: Sommerjon;939119There are two distinct definitions of 'roleplay' used here that have very different meanings, yet noone ever acknowledges which one they are referring to.

Version One Roleplay: playing the role of (i.e. Cris is playing the role of the Magic User)

Version Two Roleplay: playing the distinct character (i.e. Brother Bunion Bethel, Bürgermeister of Battenberg)

This seems to resemble this:

Quote from: Sommerjon;939119You know the type, they have an opinion on nearly every topic and have no issues climbing onto that soapbox to let everyone know just how important their opinions are.

Does it qualify to venture ones opinion on other's opinions, in your mind, of being pretentious? Or does that only mean for those other than yourself?

I smell cognitive bias in the air. I'm getting wood.

Quote from: tenbones;939118Sure sure of course! But don't you think there is level of objectivity in assigning values to things? Meyer's writing is grammatically horrible. The structure of her story is shit. The narrative is shit as it's full of dumb plotholes. This doesn't mean that the story didn't speak to people that had fun with it despite those things. Nothing about the former makes the latter untrue.

The Wright Bros. made a PIECE OF SHIT aeroplane. But that piece of shit flew. It's *not* an F-16. But no one is denying they're both airplanes. I'm saying there is a value-judgement to be made on the criteria for what is "good" vs. "less-good". That same principle can be done with GMing, and RPG's in general. And yes intent of play matters and where you wish to rest your chip on personal satisfaction matters - but those things don't remove the objective facts.

My analogy remains - Grove's group might like taking short-flights around their island in his Cessna. GREAT! I'm suggesting to his persistent questions that his issues can be resolved using methods that the Cessna simply wouldn't be an optimal choice. Conversely where his Cessna-mastery isn't even in question (by me) - I liken my campaigns compared to the examples he's giving to the space portion of the Battle of Endor using X-wings and TIE-Fighters. I couldn't use his Cessna methods to do that. Nor would my players be happy puttering around in a Cessna in space while I'd be forced to narrate 90% of my game to them simply because I was too scared or incapable of letting my players run wild and free to do what they wanted in context of the game.

If I tried to do that it would make my fucking head explode because at scale it would render their PC's meaningless. Which ultimately is my point of why using heavy narrative in my games is almost non-existent. You *can't* have large epic-scale sand-box style games - or even small ones - doing heavy-narrative. The *larger* point of all of this is - Grove is the one asking the questions. We're just answering. I have *none* of the problems he has. So they logically *can't* be equal in opinion - otherwise why would these questions even be asked?

I'm not saying using heavy narrative is wrong. If that's your thing - go for it. But it's limited by dint of the fact that *one* person is curating the experience. It simply creates a more limited set of parameters of what's possible in group-play. I fully concede it has a potential positive in that it probably reduces the chances of TPK's and other negative stuff. But for the kind of games I run - that "other stuff" and TPK's are part of the gig to achieve what I consider those "high peaks" you simply can't get through heavy narrative style play.

Grove takes this to be demeaning because he's apparently aghast that I think it's "basic". Well, it is. It's safer. It takes far less chances because it's ultimately I could do "narrative" style GMing with zero-prep... and technically I actually do it with zero-players as I'm writing a book.

Like I said pretentious windbag full of bullshit.

Heavy narrative in no way stops that "other stuff" and TPK's
Heavy narrative in no way stops epic-scale sand-box style games - or even small ones

Quote from: Sommerjon;939123Like I said pretentious windbag full of bullshit.

Heavy narrative in no way stops that "other stuff" and TPK's
Heavy narrative in no way stops epic-scale sand-box style games - or even small ones

If you actually read my bullshit - you'd see I never said Heavy Narrative stops these things I said it LIMITS these things. And you're operating out of context on purpose. But c'mon Jonny you're not *really* here to discuss this stuff. You never have been!

But I confess - I'm digging your vibe. I'm interested - give us some examples!

Quote from: tenbones;939121This seems to resemble this:



Does it qualify to venture ones opinion on other's opinions, in your mind, of being pretentious? Or does that only mean for those other than yourself?

I smell cognitive bias in the air. I'm getting wood.

No dipshit OHT has been begging me for an opinion, do try to keep up.

Funny thing about that, it's not an opinion it's a truth here.  There is two versions of 'roleplay' used here.  

You wax soapboxedly about the written word surely you noticed that by now?

Quote from: Sommerjon;939127No dipshit OHT has been begging me for an opinion, do try to keep up.

Funny thing about that, it's not an opinion it's a truth here.  There is two versions of 'roleplay' used here.  

You wax soapboxedly about the written word surely you noticed that by now?

Oh, now I'm disappointed. So you're not really venturing and an opinion and trying to back it up. You're just... blathering. You and Grove should get together and bang a game out and tell each other some some stories and post it!

Edit: you still didn't answer my question to your own definition of being pretentious windbag that's full of shit. You have historically, longer than I have, done the same thing here in this forum. Are you too a pretentious windbag that's full of shit? Or are you immune to your own definition? I'm curious. Saying something is "truth" then qualifying it by saying it's only truth "here" means it's just your opinion. Care to back that up and see how far down your own silly rhetorical shit-slide you go?

Quote from: tenbones;939118Sure sure of course! But don't you think there is level of objectivity in assigning values to things? .

As far as entertainment fiction (including rpgs) goes, I honestly don't see the point.

Quote from: rgrove0172;938991Bleh, semantics.

"Shame on Gronan for insisting that words MEAN things."

Quote from: CRKrueger;939062claiming that you're taking the High Road.

Nobody gives a fuck with Grove does at his table; the reason he's getting so much shit is his unceasing tone of "I am a NARTIST!, not like you crude plebians", and, as you say, claims of taking the High Road.

Quote from: Nexus;939129As far as entertainment fiction (including rpgs) goes, I honestly don't see the point.

Only for the purposes of discussion is all. /shrug