Recurring comment about Marvel Heroic RP that seems wrong to me

[Micah Sweet]

Just try replacing some words and see if it still makes sense.

"I don't recognize (random number generation) as a legitimate character creation method, so (D&D) has no character creation method."

That's obviously not true.

Some individuals or subgroup deciding that they don't recognize the legitimacy of a type of system does not mean it doesn't exist. As a matter of fact, they have to acknowledge it exists in order to de-legitimize it. There are rules in the book. Reading them and deciding they don't want to play with them inherently means the recognize they are rules that exist.

I have no issue with hearing the word substitution you just used, even if I disagree with it, and I certainly wouldn't be insulted by it. Why is it so important that people who don't like what you like legitimize your preferences in this way? Cant we just agree to disagree?

 

[pemerton]

You're right about the word; I was borrowing it from the title of the other thread you started about essentially the same thing: your defense against the misrepresentation of storygames. Sorry about that.

I posted two threads commenting on erroneous but recurring claims. They are not defences of anything. They are about matters of straightforward fact.

If someone doesn't recognize modeling as a valid method of character generation, then they are not silly to say so, they're just imprecise. What I don't like here is the judgement being leveled against people who don't like what you like, and the words they use to try to express those feelings.

I don't even know what "valid" means here. Is it just some idiosyncratic synonym for "liked" or "preferred"?

Cant we just agree to disagree?

Why should I agree to disagree on a simple question of fact. I mean, there are character creation rules. They go for 4 pages. They have a checklist, and a worked example, and extensive guidance. In what universe is it true to say, of this, that it does not allow for creation of characters?

 

[Micah Sweet]

I posted two threads commenting on erroneous but recurring claims. They are not defences of anything. They are about matters of straightforward fact.

I don't even know what "valid" means here. Is it just some idiosyncratic synonym for "liked" or "preferred"?


Why should I agree to disagree on a simple question of fact. I mean, there are character creation rules. They go for 4 pages. They have a checklist, and a worked example, and extensive guidance. In what universe is it true to say, of this, that it does not allow for creation of characters?

Sure, but is it worth getting offended over if people get the terms wrong, or if someone claims that they don't count modeling as a method of character generation, and you do? You know what they mean, so why can't you just let them be wrong from your point of view?

 

[pemerton]

Sure, but is it worth getting offended over if people get the terms wrong, or if someone claims that they don't count modeling as a method of character generation, and you do? You know what they mean, so why can't you just let them be wrong from your point of view?

I'm not offended. I'm just noting a recurring erroneous claim, and setting out the true state of affairs.

"Points of view" have nothing to do with it!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oxford Languages, via Google, gives me "system" = a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done; an organized scheme or method. That is consistent with my native speaker intuition.

Are you even vaguely under the impression peoples use of terms matches up with a dictionary definition in any consistent way?

Four pages of instruction, with a checklist, a resultant sequence of steps, guidelines for each step, and a worked example, is a set of principles or procedures according to which something is done. It is also an organised scheme or method.

I prefer a different system doesn't entail that the thing you don't like isn't a system.

But not seeing it as a system, no matter how you feel about it, does.

At some point you can play the dozens on people who see it differently than you, or you can accept the answer to your question is that they do see it differently than you. Your choice. But your disagreement with their perspective is not going to change it and I'd think it'd be useful to actually accept the answer rather than projecting your own take on it, but again, you be you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not offended. I'm just noting a recurring erroneous claim, and setting out the true state of affairs.

"Points of view" have nothing to do with it!

No wiggle room based on the perspective and experience of anyone other than yourself and those who already agree with you? Ok.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Sure, but is it worth getting offended over if people get the terms wrong, or if someone claims that they don't count modeling as a method of character generation, and you do? You know what they mean, so why can't you just let them be wrong from your point of view?

He never said he was offended by anything at all! All he said was "this is a factually incorrect statement" which nobody has (and I don't see how they can) refuted. What is there to discuss? Why even post here?

 

[Micah Sweet]

He never said he was offended by anything at all! All he said was "this is a factually incorrect statement" which nobody has (and I don't see how they can) refuted. What is there to discuss? Why even post here?

Was @pemerton intending to set the record straight on this issue and then "drop the mike", so to speak? No discussion?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Was @pemerton intending to set the record straight on this issue and then "drop the mike", so to speak? No discussion?

I have no special insight into @pemerton which others lack, as far as I know. In a sense I can agree with @Thomas Shey in that it may be a fact that many people, using some quite faulty logic reject the existence of a thing because they don't find it to be to their taste. That is a kind of explanation, in some sense, but it simply begs us to ask the question again in the form of "why do people use such faulty logic?"

Now, I can SPECULATE on that, but don't attribute this to Pemerton. I think there is a tendency, particularly noticeable in the last couple of decades, to attempt to rhetorically negate the existence of things you don't like. It seems to be part of a larger trend, but I am going to stop here as I don't think that sort of discussion belongs on this forum at all.

So, in summary, I think the question is still open in a very real sense, why do people deny the existence things that plainly exist, factually, simply because they don't like them? Not that I think you have any better answers than I do, it is ultimately a complex question.

 

[niklinna]

Are you even vaguely under the impression peoples use of terms matches up with a dictionary definition in any consistent way?

Wardrobe cups driven the on plaintive mows behind.

Or: "That's not a horse" – <whinny> <KICK>