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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 4912716" data-attributes="member: 59082">Nice to hear other teachers are converting, ah I mean, teaching students using RPGs. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" />See, everything you describe sounds rather second-rate in terms of creativity and imagination (Mallus goes into this a bit). I apologize if that sounds elitist, and I suppose that it is, although I do recognize the value of what you are talking about, and that it does employ imagination.However, I feel that it is not on the same scale as, say, creating a fantasy world or writing a book or painting or composing a piece of music.Back to the Coleridge quote, what you describe sounds like "fancy" but not "imagination." My concern is not that people engage in fancy, but that they replace imagination with fancy, or don't develop imagination because of excess fancy.This relates to a similar issue with TV and movies. I'm looking forward to Cameron's Avatar movie because it is finally a new science fiction idea brought to life in a big way. It isn't just a rehash or a reboot or a re-envisioning of something that somebody else already came up with. True. But I also think it is possible not to denigrate the imaginative stuff, if the stats are seen as descriptive rather than definitive. This is why I prefer the "DM Fiat approach" to the "let's-find-the-exact-rule-that-fits-in-every-situation approach."  Good point, but again I think it depends upon the people playing and whether they are able to separate the two (crunch and fluff, essentially). We're really talking about right-brain aesthetic/imaginative vs. left-brain analytic/rational, and I think RPGs appeal to both (which is why we all love them!). Different individuals (and games) emphasize one more than the other, but it takes both to have an RPG.I hear you and agree to a certain extent. I certainly agree about the problem of having a huge backlog of media images to reference whenever something is mentioned. When we think of Frodo Baggins who doesn't think of Elijah Wood? J.R.R. would be apoplectic. This becomes even more problematic when history starts being understood through media, so that the movie 300 IS the Battle of Thermopylae for a whole generation of folks. (Again, I'm not totally against anything here, I just think there are huge problems with the "rough beast slouching towards Bethlehem" that we've created, to quote Yeats).And I do agree that RPGs, by and large, do not represent the cream of the crop of imaginative creations. But there are glimpses of it. I certainly feel that fantasy and science fiction literature can be the greatest fiction of all, that in many ways mainstream "literary fiction" is a beast long-dead, that the greatest ideas are coming through specfic. Sure, this is a very small percentage of it, but it is there. The same goes, to an extent, with RPGs. You might not find artistic masterpieces in RPGs but you will find ideas of pure genius and deep inspiration. When it comes down to it, for me the greatest art is that which inspires the greatest sense of wonder and beauty. And some ideas in RPGs are truly wonder-inspiring (although less often beautiful).My sense is that you are showing little to know discrimination here, as if reading, video game playing, spinach and donuts are all "basically the same thing." All should be allowed, yet all should be moderated. But what does that mean? Is there no difference between spinach and donuts, or D&D and WoW?We can agree that all should be allowed, in moderation (or almost all). What we don't agree with, I think, is what moderation is, and in relation to different activities and substances--as well as at what point does moderation go into something harmful. Too much spinach causes harm (I know someone who had kidney stones that may have been caused by eating too much leafy greens!); too much water gets you drunk. But the point at which water causes harm is a lot greater than tequila. And so it is, I believe, with reading (for example) vs. video games.But it is a non-argument to equate computer games with reading or TRPGs simply by virtue of the fact that all three have been reviled by someone at one point or another. This would be like saying, "Assault, smoking crack, and reading the Catcher in the Rye have all been banned at schools and we all know that Catcher in the Rye is a classic and basically harmless, therefore all are okay in moderation."I'm all for finding "real facts and studies" but the truth is that all facts and studies can be shaped or understood (or spun) to fit one's pre-existing perspective. It is the basic principle of seeing what we want to see. On the other hand, without real facts and studies what else can we go on but our own observations, judgment, and intuition?As I see it, facts and studies are useful but should not be definitive. They say something but they don't say everything. How much they say, well, if a study says a lot it is a good study. But it is very tricky and I reserve the right to default to my own common sense, judgment, conscience, intuition and my untainted-by-WoW imagination <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />What research? Someone please provide a link.</blockquote>

Verification