|ciretose Star Voter 2013|
Ashiel and Tels please stay out. This isn't about either of you and I'm not interested in either of your input since you got the last thread locked.
Let's try this again.
One of the primary divides on the messageboard seems to come from a disagreement of the role of the rules in relation to the game.
On the one hand you have people who view the game as a puzzle to be solved. How can I make the best X to win all of the things. The rules, to them, are the game.
On the other hand you have the people who view the game as an interactive story that they expect to not be a simple "win" or "lose" kind of proposition. The rules, to them, serve the setting.
Obviously with people who fall in the grey area in between, but those people are nice and don't argue on the messageboard.
I fall very strongly on the side of the rules serve the setting, rather than the setting serving the rules.
So when I hear about someone trying to argue for loopholes they have found in the rules that allow them to do things counter to the logic of the setting, I want to throw a book at them. They are, to me manipulating the rules to break the setting.
When someone else hears me say "You can't do that" to something they think is RAW, to them, I am cheating and being cruel.
1. Do you agree that this is a fair dividing line (with lots of people who fall into grey areas between on various issues)
2. Which side of the debate are you generally on. In other words, do you believe the rules serve the setting or that the setting serves the rules.
To be clear, I'm not demanding agreement with my position. I'm open to discussion. Both sides are perfectly fine ways to play, however I feel like they are also incompatible with each other. I just want to see if people agree these are the sides in conflict and if they see ways that I don't to get around the incompatibility.
|Gary Teter PostMonster General|
|2 people marked this as a favorite.|
We're not really thrilled with calling out individual posters or stating who is and isn't allowed to participate in a discussion. Maybe try this again sometime later with a different framing so it's less taking sides.
I think this part of your post: "I just want to see if people agree these are the sides in conflict and if they see ways that I don't to get around the incompatibility" is actually more likely to result in good conversation without the other stuff getting in the way.