anyway.



thread: 2006-01-24 : Still More Character Ownership

On 2006-01-25, Vincent wrote:

I think, by the way, everyone, that it’s good that no one’s tried to take on Ron. We’re mostly just proving him right.

I like this thread. It hurts me. I don’t know how much more of it I can stand.



 

This makes TB go "I can't decide how to disagree"
Ron says we're all damaged, but he can see the new way emerging. But it's not for us. He's said he won't comment further on his solution, which is fair enough, but doesn't help me grasp what he means. I believe I've seen play which proves that not all of us are like he says, but I can't say for sure.

This makes WMW go "I think it's quite possible"
that what we get to at the end of this process isn't something many of us would really recognize as a "roleplaying game." I'm not at all sure that's a bad thing.

This makes BR go "Oh yea, we're at a crossroads"
I mean we've been talking for a bit now about "roleplaying games" vs "storytelling games" -- but its only now that I think we're getting to the point of being able to systematically create one or the other on purpouse. We're starting to look to very different types of games, and the "sport" is about to go from lacross to hockey and football -- so we'd better get used to the idea that not all games are played with a stick anymore.

This makes TC go "It's Coming..."
With ya, BR. It won't be someone like me that makes that next step, but someone around here will. Very soon. And those games won't be for everybody. Not all of us will like them. But all of us will respect them.

This makes VAX go "Liking things the 'old' way..."
doesn't make a person dishonest, or damaged, or stupid, or unsophisticated, or ignorant, or mean, or greedy, or any of the other value judgements that have seemed to be implied in some of the posts I've seen in this thread.

This makes VB go "Fred, I was very clear."

This makes...
initials
...go...
short response
optional explanation (be brief!):

if you're human, not a spambot, type "human":