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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="doctorhook" data-source="post: 4522658" data-attributes="member: 58401">Hey, thanks! I try to be smart! <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/glasses.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="B-)" title="Glasses    B-)" data-shortname="B-)" />I completely agree with you, thecasualoblivion, about there being more than two philosophies in the community. I had actually considered that as I was writing that post. However, in the interests of trying not to make a already complicated argument even more confusing, I simplified to two groups. Like you said, you could go on and on about it, but still, I'm glad you brought it up.I'd hazard that it's because each of the two "factions" is actually a nebula of small, distinct philosophical groups that the 3.5E/4E issue isn't completely polarizing. Despite individual folks being generally more strongly in favor of one system than the other, there's still a sizeable portion of fence-sitters, who haven't chosen one side or the other to any statistically significant degree. The community, though it sometimes seems sharply divided, still isn't anywhere near as polarized as communities sometimes are in the face of sociopolitical issues like abortion or gay marriage. This is probably because, unlike in those situations, where the choice is largely "either/or", in the roleplaying community there are more than two games (3.5E and 4E) to choose from, nor does any one choice actually exclude making additional choices. (One can choose to enjoy several games to various statistically significant degrees.)Maybe what I'm trying to say is that, ultimately, while the community is perhaps partially fractured or fragmented now, it's BS to say that 4E is "splitting" or "dividing" the community. I think any such "splitting" or "dividing" began at least several years ago, (long before 4E), and that it's primarily due to the varying mindsets of players, which have driven the development of new, philosophy-specific games via individual consumer practices.I thank you for the credit, Irda Ranger. You're obviously a good sport! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> FWIW, I don't mind not being first, but I am glad to figure something out for myself.I think my biggest error here is that I wasn't clear enough, and that I still haven't quite wrapped my head around all of the implications of what I'm suggesting. I suppose what I really mean to say was that this "philosophical shift" was community-based first, and is community-based more than rules-/system-based. It's not that the systems haven't influenced these philosophies, but I believe that it's the community that drives the development of new games. (Thanks to free-market economics; generally speaking, consumers buy what they want and don't buy what they don't want, and in order to secure those consumers' dollars, producers attempt to sell what consumers want, and attempt to avoid being stuck trying to sell what consumers don't want.) Specifically, I mean to suggest that the attitudes present in the gaming community tend to inform the attitudes of game designers and developers, who are themselves members of the community. Thus, a new "narrativist" game might be developed in the hopes of becoming a successful product, buoyed by the support of "narrativist" gamers, for example.I really hope I'm not still contradicting myself here; I'm trying not to, but lemme know. I'll also admit that there's probably an opposite side to what I'm suggesting; that, in fact, the games people play (not to mention the movies they see, and the books they read, and so on...) influence the attitudes of the gaming community, bringing us back to one big cycle of a myriad of ever-shifting philosophies influenced by and influencing each other, the community around them, and the products which result in order to cater to that community.Call me a "Communitist". I focus on and believe in the community as the primary driving force of change, despite that the reality is multilayered and much more complicated.</blockquote>

Verification