No worries, I both remember and still care.
Responses to your points are in order. Normally I'd quote for ease of reading, but I'm phone posting.
1. Usually, those who are planning are willing to accommodate certain actions within reason. All it takes is communication.
I'll address the perceived us vs haspen mentality further down.
2. I don't buy this, personally. Chapter 11x of FEF1 was micromanaged action to action in some places because shit got crazy, but there was still a lot of strong roleplay. I feel like planning is only going to limit roleplay if you let it.
3. I suppose this boils down to difference of opinion.
4. There will be times where 'doing your own thing' will be both disruptive and foolish, because sometimes maps are insanely difficult for one reason or another. Best to come to terms with that now. I agree that forcing micromanagement to simply evade a wipe isn't good game design, but an important thing to keep in mind is that conditions are persistent from turn to turn. Might it not be disastrous to open a choke point for a turn? Well maybe. But will it make things harder down the line? Assuming the map isn't already nearly over, most likely.
Each turn informs the next, and if you want to see how a manageable situation can turn into a serious nail biter with just a couple careless moves, I suggest you check out the Snow Village chapter of FEF1.
I'm not trying to scare or bully anyone into never doing anything without a plan. I would just prefer if those individualist actions were informed. And if you don't like the move you've been given in someone else's plan, please discuss that with the planner. All of us are trying to have fun here.
5. Well, it certainly seemed like you were taking a hard line stance against planning, which left me a little surprised when you began contributing to planning soon after. Devil's Advocate is all well and good, but there is a way to do that. Your wording suggested something other than what you are now stating was your intent. So I suggest you keep an eye on that, to avoid causing unintended offense. I know I've done it before, and it can lead to unfortunate places.
And as stated before, communicating with the people who step up to plan is welcome.
6. Pretty much the same points I made about wording last point apply here too.
7. I don't know that I believe this to be the case. Yes, we didn't plan as much when FEF first came on the scene, and it was a bit easier in some respects then, but I'd chalk that up to early installment weirdness. The back half of FEF1 had a lot of those planning heavy maps, and it has more or less become the norm, in part, because the format calls for careful thought at the first sign of challenge. Also I'd say that FEF3 or FEF6 are more emblematic of 'typical FEF' than FEF5, which has had several flee the map objectives, which have high level enemies and high pressure situations by necessity, and these are where plans become most important and pronounced.
When it comes down to it, the 'war' between GMs and players is a fantasy. As much as Haspen likes to kid around and occasionally enjoy our misery, his goal, and the goal of other GMs, is not adversarial. It is not to kill us all. If that was the case, no PC would ever make it to the end of the game. So at worst, a GM may accidentally make the map too difficult in an attempt to keep things tense and challenging. Interpreting these as malicious gestures can be hurtful to both parties, so be careful with that.
8. Yeah, dialogue with GMs is important, because we do occasionally make mistakes in map design, considering that map design is not an exact science. I would say that in specific terms, speaking about particular games should probably be kept to their respective OOCs.
Poll
Author
Topic: Fire Emblem on Forums 6 (FEF6), OOC Thread! DED (Read 87869 times)