RPGing and imagination: a fundamental point

[FrogReaver]

On the other hand, the classic distinction between an ad-hominem and not is to direct criticism at an idea, not the person. At a certain point if you can't divorce yourself from taking criticism of an idea you hold, you can't really discuss it. You might say blunt object descriptions like "bonkers" of ideas is prone to making that harder, but that's very much a moving target.

I think a clear line can be drawn at meaningless and non-productive criticism.

‘Your idea is stupid’ is clearly across that line. ‘Your idea doesn’t make sense to me because xyz’ is clearly on the good side of the line.

Edit: Or to state the problem a bit more clearly - what does one hope to gain by calling another’s ideas stupid, while providing no more context? Seems to me the only possible reasons to make that kind of statement is to be intentionally dismissive. Though I’m certainly open to more kind alternatives if they exist.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think a clear line can be drawn at meaningless and non-productive criticism.

‘Your idea is stupid’ is clearly across that line. ‘Your idea doesn’t make sense to me because xyz’ is clearly on the good side of the line.

Edit: Or to state the problem a bit more clearly - what does one hope to gain by calling another’s ideas stupid, while providing no more context? Seems to me the only possible reasons to make that kind of statement is to be intentionally dismissive. Though I’m certainly open to more kind alternatives if they exist.

It is dismissive, but it can also be an indicator of your overall attitude toward it, and that it doesn't really deserve much more reaction.

I mean, "doesn't make sense" is still within the range of things someone can see as critical of them; I've seen the equivalent of it on this very board. Adding in the reasons it seems senseless isn't going to stop people from reacting that way. If that's how they're feeling, they'll just likely aggressively attack your stated reasons.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is dismissive, but it can also be an indicator of your overall attitude toward it, and that it doesn't really deserve much more reaction.

IMO, there are better ways to express your overall attitude toward an idea than by simply being dismissive.

I mean, "doesn't make sense" is still within the range of things someone can see as critical of them;

Add a to me on the end. Problem solved.

I've seen the equivalent of it on this very board. Adding in the reasons it seems senseless isn't going to stop people from reacting that way.

That usually depends on how that idea and reasons are being expressed.

If that's how they're feeling, they'll just likely aggressively attack your stated reasons.

1. I don’t think people typically aggressively attack something for no reason.
2. If your reasons are aggressively attacking their idea, why shouldn’t they respond by aggressively attacking those reasons? Isn’t that what discussion is all about? I mean ideally everyone would be a bit more neutral - but passionate responses aren’t bad of themselves on either side.

 

[Hriston]

What if that board is a fictional world and those tokens are fictional characters?

I have no idea what you're saying. How can there be fiction if no one imagines it?

 

[FrogReaver]

I have no idea what you're saying. How can there be fiction if no one imagines it?

Ever watch a movie?

 

[Hriston]

Ever watch a movie?

Yes, people write those. They don't just exist without someone imagining some fiction.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, people write those. They don't just exist without someone imagining some fiction.

Obviously. What’s your point again?

 

[Hriston]

Obviously. What’s your point again?

See post #149.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m going to go out on a limb here and say if all you’re imagining is tokens moving on a board then you’re probably not playing an RPG. I hope I haven’t excluded anyone.

I assume this is the post you meant.

So bringing this back into context, when one is watching a movie, even though the movie writers, actors, directors were probably all imagining it, the one watching isn’t imagining anything, he’s watching.

That seems to more connect with my point than yours? So I’m a bit confused.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

So bringing this back into context, when one is watching a movie, even though the movie writers, actors, directors were probably all imagining it, the one watching isn’t imagining anything, he’s watching.

There's an argument that American cinematic culture doesn't present movies worth thinking about (I don't think that argument is worth rehashing), but I'd suggest that this is a surprisingly passive way to describe watching a movie. It may be that less is left strictly to the imagination than is for the reader of a book, but someone watching a movie could be (hopefully is) actively imagining things while watching.