argument over at RPG.net. It was not my intent to make anyone upset or feel threatened by my "collaborative vs. competitve" argument.
The idea originally was to seek out other games or mechanics people have found that work well to produce a give-and-take between players and the GM to move some popular, more strategic games towards the storytelling potential of GM-less games.
I wanted to find a term that would be opposite of collaborative other than "non-collaborative" games since non-collaborative really isn't the sense I was trying to express. The first page of the thread, as you can see, got some great replies, and I'm looking into their suggestions, but from there, it kind of went in another direction. You see, this is what we in the biz refer to as thread hijacking. My purpose for the thread was to discuss how we can move strategic games towards storytelling style games, not if we should. The whole idea that this purpose could be threatened or something someone "shouldn't" do is just ridiculous.
Innovation is not something to be feared, but revered. It's the only way we get new blood into the hobby both intellectually and physically with brand new players. If we don't innovate and build up, we wind up just creating heavier and clunkier versions through our "improvements" over a long period of time. Innovation is how we're going to make the old that's something exciting and new. The innovation of D&D 4e was one of the main factors that kept our group going strong towards heavier RPG playing. I don't really know why I was surprised that the thread went in the direction it did - it's far easier to disagree and tear down than it is to help and build up.
Oh well, how about that Lost finale, huh? That was... something... (just in case you read this tomorrow or the next day, or whenever :)