Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9104369" data-attributes="member: 7023840">On that....I think that there is a big difference between using a term to describe a game, or a playing style, in order to discuss it with other people ... as opposed to using the same term to compare games or playing styles.And it's the second usage that causes the problems.To use &quot;skilled play,&quot; as an example- if you are talking with fellow OSR or OD&amp;D enthusiasts, then you can use the term to talk about something you want from the game itself. You want &quot;skilled play&quot; as the preferred method of playing.Where the trouble arises is when you using it as a comparator, because then you're saying that one game has more &quot;skilled play&quot; than another game. And while you might be correct in the narrow, technical &quot;jargon&quot; meaning of the word that is used in certain circles, you are certainly not going to get much traction by talking about which games require more &quot;skilled play&quot; (general meaning) than other games.You can rinse and repeat with a lot of terms we see bandied about. Does anyone want to say they play a &quot;low-trust&quot; game? That their game has a lot of &quot;mother may I?&quot; That their game lacks &quot;player agency?&quot; The reason people get offended is because, more often than not, there are conversations wherein people are trying to evangelize a certain game (or playing style) as superior to others through the use of jargon. And that's usually not helpful.Again, we should be able to talk about how awesome our thing is, without denigrating something else. Which, to be fair, seems to be incredibly hard to do based on the evidence at hand.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9104369, member: 7023840"] On that.... I think that there is a big difference between using a term to describe a game, or a playing style, in order to discuss it with other people ... as opposed to using the same term to compare games or playing styles. And it's the second usage that causes the problems. To use "skilled play," as an example- if you are talking with fellow OSR or OD&D enthusiasts, then you can use the term to talk about something you want from the game itself. You want "skilled play" as the preferred method of playing. Where the trouble arises is when you using it as a comparator, because then you're saying that one game has more "skilled play" than another game. And while you might be correct in the narrow, technical "jargon" meaning of the word that is used in certain circles, you are certainly not going to get much traction by talking about which games require more "skilled play" (general meaning) than other games. You can rinse and repeat with a lot of terms we see bandied about. Does anyone want to say they play a "low-trust" game? That their game has a lot of "mother may I?" That their game lacks "player agency?" The reason people get offended is because, more often than not, there are conversations wherein people are trying to evangelize a certain game (or playing style) as superior to others through the use of jargon. And that's usually not helpful. Again, we should be able to talk about how awesome our thing is, without denigrating something else. Which, to be fair, seems to be incredibly hard to do based on the evidence at hand. [/QUOTE]

Verification