Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6417912" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'm not sure that it serves no practical purpose.&nbsp; For example, for all the problems with Forge criticism, it has given people a set of tools with which to talk about RPG's.&nbsp; Now, I'm not saying that Forgisms are right or they should be taken as gospel.&nbsp; Of course they shouldn't.&nbsp; But, to simply dismiss it as &quot;academic&quot; is a disservice as well.When Robin Laws comes along and talks about the different kinds of players you find around an RPG table, that's no different.&nbsp; No one is 100% one kind of player or another, but, it is useful, both as a self reflexive tool and as a means for resolving table issues, to be able to point to some fairly commonly accepted definitions of play style and talk about them.I think it's very useful to have these sorts of classification discussions.&nbsp; It forces people to examine pre-conceptions about different games.&nbsp; In particular, it can really shine light on why a game might be better or worse at some kinds of activities.&nbsp;[MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] - why wouldn't Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea be considered Science Fiction.&nbsp; It's got all the basic themes right there - an examination of how man fits in with his world through technology.&nbsp; That's fundamental SF right there.&nbsp; To be fair, some of the really early SF, particularly the Pulp stuff, is kind of its own thing.&nbsp; Much of it is simply an adventure story with some ray guns and space ships tossed on.&nbsp; None of the SF themes are there.&nbsp; Compare to H. G. Wells, where, even though it's very negative towards science (after all, the only thing that saves mankind is a microbe), it's still a story about what it means to be human in the face of the alien.&nbsp; Rolling this back around to RPG's, you cannot ignore the text of the game if you are going to classify it.&nbsp; But, you trust purely anecdotal evidence that cannot ever be verified?&nbsp; How many people play in a certain way?&nbsp; Beyond, &quot;Well, I know a guy (or guys) who do it this way, so, that's the way the game is played&quot; is not terribly useful.&nbsp; It just comes down to dueling anecdotes.&nbsp; Your example of SUV's is a bit different because we can actually look at market research (if we had access to it) and find out how people are using SUV's.&nbsp; Although, even then, which people?&nbsp; Middle class American suburbanites or maybe people in Afghanistan.&nbsp; Do we include Range Rovers or not.&nbsp; And, even a large segment of people are using SUV's as a minivan, what difference does that make?&nbsp; Other than, yes, you can use it as a minivan.&nbsp; It doesn't change what the car was designed for.&nbsp; I can use a Hummer as a minivan, but, again, I wouldn't say that's it's primary design goal.&nbsp; You cannot ignore the text of the game when criticising that game.&nbsp; It would be like saying we can ignore the movie Star Wars when criticising the movie Star Wars.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6417912, member: 22779"] I'm not sure that it serves no practical purpose. For example, for all the problems with Forge criticism, it has given people a set of tools with which to talk about RPG's. Now, I'm not saying that Forgisms are right or they should be taken as gospel. Of course they shouldn't. But, to simply dismiss it as "academic" is a disservice as well. When Robin Laws comes along and talks about the different kinds of players you find around an RPG table, that's no different. No one is 100% one kind of player or another, but, it is useful, both as a self reflexive tool and as a means for resolving table issues, to be able to point to some fairly commonly accepted definitions of play style and talk about them. I think it's very useful to have these sorts of classification discussions. It forces people to examine pre-conceptions about different games. In particular, it can really shine light on why a game might be better or worse at some kinds of activities. [MENTION=40166]prosfilaes[/MENTION] - why wouldn't Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea be considered Science Fiction. It's got all the basic themes right there - an examination of how man fits in with his world through technology. That's fundamental SF right there. To be fair, some of the really early SF, particularly the Pulp stuff, is kind of its own thing. Much of it is simply an adventure story with some ray guns and space ships tossed on. None of the SF themes are there. Compare to H. G. Wells, where, even though it's very negative towards science (after all, the only thing that saves mankind is a microbe), it's still a story about what it means to be human in the face of the alien. Rolling this back around to RPG's, you cannot ignore the text of the game if you are going to classify it. But, you trust purely anecdotal evidence that cannot ever be verified? How many people play in a certain way? Beyond, "Well, I know a guy (or guys) who do it this way, so, that's the way the game is played" is not terribly useful. It just comes down to dueling anecdotes. Your example of SUV's is a bit different because we can actually look at market research (if we had access to it) and find out how people are using SUV's. Although, even then, which people? Middle class American suburbanites or maybe people in Afghanistan. Do we include Range Rovers or not. And, even a large segment of people are using SUV's as a minivan, what difference does that make? Other than, yes, you can use it as a minivan. It doesn't change what the car was designed for. I can use a Hummer as a minivan, but, again, I wouldn't say that's it's primary design goal. You cannot ignore the text of the game when criticising that game. It would be like saying we can ignore the movie Star Wars when criticising the movie Star Wars. [/QUOTE]

Verification