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: 8166036">I have to get to work on some reading (RPG related) so if this response if my response to your response is slow to come, that is the reason (not ignoring you). I think this is something where we just have several underlying disagreements that will be hard to bridge. But first I would say, you are right we already do have a specialized language in the hobby. Much of that arise organically from the need to address concepts that are unique to the hobby. Some of it, IMO, is frankly more confusing than it is clarifying, but it also is what it is at this point. However I see that as all the more reason to restrain ourselves from constantly coining new language if we don't have to (and it may be there are places where it is needed). Personally I find when I encounter posters who communicate like many of the ones on this thread do (and to be clear, you usually speak in very plain terms, and I don't recall you employing heavy amounts of jargon, so I haven't had much issue communicating with you), I have a very hard time understanding them, even if the terms are explained to me (simply because I haven't internalized the meanings of those terms as much). Another issue is when I examine the terms themselves, or go to a model like GNS to learn more, I find I have a lot of issues with the core assumptions of the model the language comes from.this is just my opinion, but it is one formed from years of communicating with people in your camp of the hobby: I don't feel your frame work does a good of accounting for my priorities (in fact I don't even know that an idea like priorities is useful here to be totally honest). I see people telling me what it is they think I am doing, and I don't doubt that is what they believe I am doing, but it doesn't match my experience. And I don't think you and the others are as objective in this pursuit as you think. I used to be a freelance stringer, and I think I understand concepts like objectively analyzing and reporting. And one of the things that leaps out to me is your use of language describing my style. Just look at lines like "There's some lazy engagement with mechanics". That isn't objective. That is the kind of sentence that seems like an objective reporting of what you see but clearly inserts your opinion and the conclusion you want the reader to reach. And this isn't to attack you. You are actually one of the more objective posters. But it is the kind of language that is present in many of the responses. To be clear here, I have no issue with you disliking, disagreeing with, or seeing my style and thinking something is going on that I don't think. But everyone here seems so certain. To me, that level of certainty is usually evidence of bias. It isn't what I expect from someone who is engaged in real objectivity. I think the objective person understands they can be wrong. And if your response is, well Bedrock, you too are certain of your views: the answer is no I am not. I am constantly questioning my own views, which is why I asked for outside opinions on my definition of agency. Because maybe I was wrong all these years about how my segment of the hobby defined that term. What I am is very, very cautious about adopting models, ideologies and conclusions simply because someone is persuasive. I have seen a lot of bad ideas take root, because someone on a forum made a convincing case for something.One of the things I like about the OSR is it hasn't really embraced an explosion of jargon. There are a major terms that matter, and often there is more than one word for it. What is usually important is the concept more than the language I think. But within the OSR, within the side of the hobby that I am from (and I honestly am not sure the best way to characterize that) my view has always been we should be very slow to build new language (and what language emerges should be honest and organic). Sometimes you have to come up with a term to convey an idea. That is fine. I don't have a big issue with individual writers describing their style in such a way. What I think becomes a problem is parts of the hobby having such specialized langauge, that they are impossible to understand. And I can tell you honestly there are posters here who, because of the jargon they use, I find almost indecipherable. I am not sure exactly what this means, but it seems like an interesting point so would you mind clarifying this one ?</blockquote>

Verification