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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Magic-User" data-source="post: 842848" data-attributes="member: 11482">I'll take the opportunity to vent. I am responding to the article, just to throw my opinions out, not to S'mon, Monte, or anyone else.I hate the idea that mature books are about people's daily lives. I hate the idea the mature games have to have deep and subtle social characteristics. I hate the idea that RPGs are by default "immature" for dealing with extraordinary characters. I hate Salman Rushdie, Ingmar Bergman, and Virginia Woolf.Already, many of you who agree with Andrew Rilstone have tagged me "immature," and are filtering out what I'm saying. If you're doing that, I hate you, too."Maturity," in Western society (I have no idea about other societies) is a poorly-defined concept at best, and I disagree with Andrew Rilstone's definition. You are not mature because you can read painfully boring novels, and say "Wow! That tear-inducingly boring book really changed the way I look at things!"You are not mature because you can say "I spent the last four hours role-playing a conversation about fantasy weather!"You are not mature because you can say, "My character ran away from the army, and I spent all night figuring out who he settled down and had kids with!"You are not mature because you think of everything in terms of social changes.I know this is where I should put up my opinion to have it knocked down by all the people here who think they can argue better than me and are completely, irreffutably, and utterly correct on how life should be lived. But I'm not going to do that.Each and every philosophy about life gets laughed at by some one. And I'm laughing at Andrew Rilstone now. And that's what my post is really about. Something isn't "mature" because it's like Virginia Woolf's writing; it's mature because you think it is.</blockquote>

Verification