D&D General Mike Mearls' blog post about RPG generations

[TheAlkaizer]

Man, I got like two notifications of replies from the thread after I made it. Then nothing. I was kinda busy and thought "Oh well it's just not an interesting topic to people" then as my time frees up, I come here with my afternoon cup of coffee to see that the thread is over 21 pages long.

Time to get reading.

 

[Theory of Games]

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yeah, discuss what you like, the motivations behind it, without appealing to a label which is just another thing people argue about like in that thread over yonder.

Can you provide an example of said discourse? We use labels for a reason. Replacing the existing ones is fine by me, but removing them and replacing them with nothing doesn't read to me as workable.

 

[Scribe]

Can you provide an example of said discourse? We use labels for a reason. Replacing the existing ones is fine by me, but removing them and replacing them with nothing doesn't read to me as workable.

Of course its workable.

1. "I'm a gamist."

2. "Well what does that even mean."

3. "It means ....."

Open with 3 instead, and you cut out 1 and 2. Even better, you cut out the pedantry and faux intellectualism that has no place in Elf Game discussion anyway, because in the above example you then get.

4. "Thats not what gamist means, it means X."

5. "No, it means Y."

6. "Idiots, clearly its Z, and by the way, simulationism is king."

All you have to do is look at a certain 2000 page thread to see this happening over and over in real time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Of course its workable.

1. "I'm a gamist."

2. "Well what does that even mean."

3. "It means ....."

Open with 3 instead, and you cut out 1 and 2. Even better, you cut out the pedantry and faux intellectualism that has no place in Elf Game discussion anyway, because in the above example you then get.

4. "Thats not what gamist means, it means X."

5. "No, it means Y."

6. "Idiots, clearly its Z, and by the way, simulationism is king."

All you have to do is look at a certain 2000 page thread to see this happening over and over in real time.

That's not an example of discussion without labels though. All it is is the implication of a definition thrown out in isolation, without any context.

I'm not saying what we have is good, I'm saying I want to see something better before I'm willing to believe it can happen.

How do you have a discussion about game types, styles and preferences without labels? Please show me.

 

[Scribe]

I'm not saying what we have is good, I'm saying I want to see something better before I'm willing to believe it can happen.

Everything about modern discourse, especially online, is screaming at you otherwise. We can no longer agree on what labels, definitions, even mean.

Instead, discuss what you like to see instead of applying a label and assuming people are just going to run with your definition and accept it, when quite clearly that does not happen.

Ask me what I enjoy about Shadowdark, and you are not going to hear well...I mean look at this.

The Forge :: The Provisional Glossary

No.thank.you.sir.

 

[grankless]

Everything about modern discourse, especially online, is screaming at you otherwise. We can no longer agree on what labels, definitions, even mean.

Instead, discuss what you like to see instead of applying a label and assuming people are just going to run with your definition and accept it, when quite clearly that does not happen.

Ask me what I enjoy about Shadowdark, and you are not going to hear well...I mean look at this.

The Forge :: The Provisional Glossary

No.thank.you.sir.

I really like how in this post you are both mad about the idea of loose definitions and also mad that the attempt has been made to define things. Pick a side dawg.

 

[Scribe]

I really like how in this post you are both mad about the idea of loose definitions and also mad that the attempt has been made to define things. Pick a side dawg.

I'm not mad about loose definitions. I reject the value of 'definitions' which are not going to be agreed upon on this or any other RPG site other than MAYBE the one that declares said definitions, in regards to improving the quality of discussion.

They are pointless.

 

[Theory of Games]

Everything about modern discourse, especially online, is screaming at you otherwise. We can no longer agree on what labels, definitions, even mean.

We can have rational discussion IF we choose to. If we agree on what terms mean and express our ideas as clearly as we can.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not mad about loose definitions. I reject the value of 'definitions' which are not going to be agreed upon on this or any other RPG site other than MAYBE the one that declares said definitions, in regards to improving the quality of discussion.

They are pointless.

I suspect you've effectively decided, then, that discussion about styles and preferences is functionally impossible, because nobody is going to keep repeating what they're talking about with those constantly. Its just not going to happen. That's why jargon develops in the first place.

You may be right that agreeing to terms is impossible (its certainly hard) but without that, you just can't talk about these things at any length.