What assumption of mine is wrong exactly? I think I understand what that sentence is supposed to mean, but I am not sure in the context.
Well, I can't exactly say, because all I have is that you said you came to the opposite conclusion from me while saying something I agree with 100%, so clearly there's an error about what you think I meant with that quote.
This sort of attitude (most people just haven't been enlightened, and that's ok, I guess) is almost required for those advocating the views you are it seems. I held my nose when I bought Burning Wheel in particular because despite the attitudes of the community and designer I thought they were really onto something. Though, it just recently became impossible to deny just how much of an ass-hat the designer is and I might finally chuck my copy.
No, you've badly misunderstood me, although if you're coming from Forge experience, I don't fault you for that -- I very much dislike a lot of the attitudes that pervaded the Forge, and actually, just yesterday, had a PM conversation with some other posters here about how much I felt the Forge had some truly good ideas but absolutely buried them under the superiority and loaded terms.
No, what I meant wasn't that I was more enlightened, but rather that experience makes a difference in available tools. To make a bad analogy (aren't they all?), it's like different culinary traditions. If you're really only familiar with, say, traditional American fare, like hamburgers, steaks, and potatoes, then it's hard to grasp what's different about Indian cuisine without experience -- the difference in spices and preparation and tastes is pretty large. However, if you do that experience, then you can do interesting things like fusions or selecting specific plates for specific reasons. It's not enlightenment, because you aren't better or more enlightened for having that experience, it's just awareness.
What usually happens, though, with RPGs, is that when different takes are discussed from different games, it gets filtered through what one already knows about RPGs, and that makes things difficult. It's like trying to explain a curried rice, with the spices and flavors, and being told, "yeah, we eat rice over here, too, it's not any different, I guess you could put spices in the rice if you wanted." And, sure, that's true at some level -- both have rice -- but it's also profoundly missing the point. This doesn't really happen much with food, though, because there's a wide awareness that there are different cuisines these days, but it still happens with RPGs. Experience with other systems just allows one to better select flavors that they like -- it doesn't make them any more enlightened.
Also, even if you're utterly unaware of another cuisine (or RPG), then you can still have great enjoyment with food (or RPGs). This is why I say it doesn't matter -- not because I think it's fine for people to not have extra experiences, but because this is a hobby for fun, and having fun is the only really important bit.
"Most people" have enough experience to analyze play, though they certainly won't all analyze it in the way you would. Analysis is always through a particular lens, including your own, not to mention people who ascribe to particular schools of game design. I have been involved in the hobby for decades, spent way too much time reading and listening to ttrpgs and design theory, I have experience with more games than I would want to list but germane to your points would be the aforementioned Burning Wheel, various PbtA, Fate, 4e D&D. I have more than enough experience to "really analyze play" and the motivation came from my inherent desire to understand myself and others but also seeing these games over and over not providing the results they aspired to.
I'll agree to this and disagree. Sure, most people can analyze things, but, as you note, only within their experience set. When I'm talking about other approaches, if you lack the experience, then you cannot do that analysis. This isn't another enlightenment thing, it's just simple facts -- if you lack the reference, you can't refer to it. Some people can arrive there, doing the work, but that's a pretty uncommon pathway.
As far as your experience goes, let me again say that I'm with you on how a lot of the Forge designers presented ideas in a format that made it hard to listen to them. I recently read an old Forge article by Ron Edwards that had some very interesting things to say, but couched them in terms of "Gamer Brain Damage." I mean, seriously? How on Earth to you expect to make a salient point when you start by saying people have brain damage, even if it's a metaphor?! Stupid. Still, there's good stuff buried under that caking, but I certainly don't expect people to willingly wade through the crap to find the cream. So, 100% with your reaction to some of this stuff, and understand how that might influence your take on the games they created (although I think Burning Wheel, as a game book, avoids the loaded language).
And, also, having experience with other games does not require you to like them. That's never been my point.
After following countless rabbit holes of "you're playing it wrong" that I and others pursued and were sent down by true believers, I have no doubt that I "get it". I just don't think "it" is all that great. Others enjoy it, which is wonderful but unfortunately it's really common amongst those that do to look down on those that don't, either seeing them as uninformed or sometimes even doing something morally questionable or dishonest.
I still can enjoy Fate, it's just a very particular experience and doesn't satisfy some of the core reasons I play ttrpgs. I am still somewhat open to PbtA, it's just that I've been let down by each iteration I got into and fundamentally the system doesn't have much to offer me other than a bit of rules asymmetry. Burning Wheel on the other hand I am done with.
This is perfectly fine. To call someone else out, I really enjoy conversing with
@prabe, and he really doesn't like games I love. He's read them, and tried to grok them, and has cogent reasons for why he doesn't like them, and I appreciate that viewpoint. All too often games are dismissed and it's clear the person dismissing them fails to grok the game at a fundamental level (like my example above about curried rice). This is more irksome. I'm not sure where you fall on this spectrum -- you haven't said what it is about the games above you dislike other than the author of one -- but it seems you've made an effort, and for that I'm very appreciative. It also seems to have come with chip on your shoulder, so maybe not altogether great, but still, anyone even willing to read some of those rulesets is definitely something I appreciate.
My point in this thread, though, has never been that approach is wrong or there are better ones, but that the given reason for an approach is not well aligned with it's results. This is an analysis issue -- looking at what you're doing and what that does to achieve game goals, but not one where I'm suggesting there's a better approach, just trying to get people to drill down past the shallow "consistency" argument into what this approach is actually doing for them and what itch it is scratching. Those are, almost always, 100% perfectly cromulent play goals, and the drill down and analysis can only serve to find ways to better engage them. Or, maybe you're lucky and stumbled into the perfect approach for your table! Wouldn't you like to confirm this? I know I did, and now I can do a better job of presenting and playing games that I pick and tailor to achieve the specific goals I'm looking for. Sometimes that's a prep-heavy hexcrawl or dungeon crawl, sometimes it's an AP (although, honestly, this is more a concession to my group), and sometimes it's a non-D&D game altogether, with very different play priorities and procedures. More tools in the toolbox, more cuisines to sample from!
