Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8158875">No, both sides are making cases for their position. They are not doing a good job of persuading each other, but that doesn't mean both sides are not making arguments, some arguments are good, but not sound though. Asserting that you've demonstrated your position with examples, therefore people should agree, isn't how people work. I will say many of the arguments on your side are compelling. But many are also specious in my opinion (and I am sure the same goes for my side). But it is so easy in these discussions to have flawed premises, to equivocate (there has been a lot of this in my opinion) and to wrangle over highly subjective concepts. This is not the kind of discussion that can easily be distilled into cold logic and yield a result like "Game A produces maximum Z".I don't mind having disagreements. I don't mind someone telling me they think I am wrong about something (I think like most people, I realize I can be wrong about stuff). I do mind some of the ways people on the other side have made their point (especially when it basically sounds like they are saying me, or others taking the position I am taking are stupid). People don't like being called idiots. Most of us have explained very clearly we don't play a lot of the games you do, and rely on your reports of those games to give our responses (and most of us have also declared an interest in trying such games; and we've pointed to some games in that orbit we've tried and liked). The other issue is jargon. Your side of the debate uses a lot of jargon, that my side of the debate simply doesn't use and has very little understanding of. We might be familiar with them, because we've had to look them up following conversations like this one. But we haven't internalized them the way you do. So this jargon often produces misunderstandings, but it also sometimes comes across, and in some cases I do think this is what its purpose is, as just being a way to make the other side capitulate a point (you see this all the time in arguments where people use some specialized language, and it has an intimidating effect, or makes the speaker sound more informed and thoughtful than they really are). I get that your side has a model of analysis it uses. That is find. But this model, and penchant for analysis, is routinely invoked to suggest you guys are saying something that is therefore objectively true and can't be disagreed with (and to disagree is to be illogical or non-analytical. No, we just don't live by the same model of understanding RPGs as you do. This is why, for example, I have never adopted some of the language you (like calling stuff that happens in the setting, 'the fiction').</blockquote>

Verification