thread: 2009-05-07 : Explaining the Right to Dream

On 2009-05-08, Marco wrote:

With me, everybody? Does anybody think that those aren't two valid, common, incompatible answers to the question?

I think that having binary formulations like this is sort of like reducing all objects to "a sphere" in physics 101 so that the equations are simple enough for first-years to follow. It doesn't invalidate the theory but it's also not exactly an especially relevant real-world example.

I expect that given people's trigger issues (say the GM sets up a little 'domestic abuse' for the greater-good that the Paladin will engage in) there will be judgments and commentary and there is, in fact, no 'shared understanding' that this stuff is off limits.

The default mode of play that exists in reality around this stuff is based on individual thresholds and specific issues—ALL PLAY is type #2 and it sometimes appears at #1 because the stuff in the game is beneath people's thresholds for the specific kind of conflict.

That's my take.




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

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