Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3674366" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, it seems clear that WayneLigon thinks his position is a superior one.&nbsp; Whether or not it is, of course, is subject to debate, but I don't think he is wrong in saying (paraphrasing here) that a person with a superior argument that believes his argument to be superior is an elitist.&nbsp; It therefore follows that a person who believes that his argument is superior is not an elitist for holding that belief.....although he may be wrong.Of course, I've yet to have a satisfactory answer to the simply line of reasoning that says that if computer games are extended to be role-playing games, why isn't Monopoly or Chess?&nbsp; Nor has the Madden Football analogy been adequately addressed.&nbsp; We have seen a lot of people say that certain computer games are rpgs because of how they are similar to role-playing games, and acknowledge that they fail to fully capture the games they are similar to, and yet fail to make the leap that they are therefore simulations of role-playing games.These things together, to my mind, suggests a definition that fails to define, and is therefore a weaker position.&nbsp; YMMV, and probably does.They are certainly superior in some ways.&nbsp; I've yet to see a DM crunch numbers as fast as a computer can, for example.&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/laugh.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":lol:" title="Laughing&nbsp; &nbsp; :lol:" data-shortname=":lol:" />&nbsp; As far as which is more fun, I am inclined toward rpgs over computer games, but I know people whose inclinations are exactly the opposite.RCBTW, what do you think &quot;Elitists versus Inclusionists - Do tomatoes play RPGs?&quot; is supposed to mean?&nbsp; An off-handed ad hominem attack in the (new) thread title itself?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3674366, member: 18280"] Well, it seems clear that WayneLigon thinks his position is a superior one. Whether or not it is, of course, is subject to debate, but I don't think he is wrong in saying (paraphrasing here) that a person with a superior argument that believes his argument to be superior is an elitist. It therefore follows that a person who [i]believes[/i] that his argument is superior is not an elitist for holding that belief.....although he may be wrong. Of course, I've yet to have a satisfactory answer to the simply line of reasoning that says that if computer games are extended to be role-playing games, why isn't Monopoly or Chess? Nor has the Madden Football analogy been adequately addressed. We have seen a lot of people say that certain computer games are rpgs because of how they are similar to role-playing games, and acknowledge that they fail to fully capture the games they are similar to, and yet fail to make the leap that they are therefore simulations of role-playing games. These things together, to my mind, suggests a definition that fails to define, and is therefore a weaker position. YMMV, and probably does. They are certainly superior in some ways. I've yet to see a DM crunch numbers as fast as a computer can, for example. :lol: As far as which is more fun, I am inclined toward rpgs over computer games, but I know people whose inclinations are exactly the opposite. RC BTW, what do you think "Elitists versus Inclusionists - Do tomatoes play RPGs?" is supposed to mean? An off-handed ad hominem attack in the (new) thread title itself? [/QUOTE]

Verification