Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 9830015" data-attributes="member: 6993955">I think that what I'm trying to identify with the phrase 'conceptual horizon' is very much involved, at least generally in how people read and interpret RPGs. People come to a new RPG book with all manner of previous experience and that experience informs their reading of the text. It is regular and predictable that in some cases the prior experience of the reader - their preferred style, their understanding of what an RPG is and does, their conception of their players, and all manner of things can get in the way of grokking a new rule set. That reader's purpose for reading is also part of this package. One way to read an RPG is to read to find out how it works. Another is to read to find out how well it conforms to some previously held opinions about RPGs. Many gamers to some extent read in the latter fashion. An additional complication is the extent to which some readers think that simply reading the rules conveys then the same understanding as playing those rules. I'll grant that with experience and understanding the former becomes more and more possible, but that doesn't prevent people dropping hot takes from the seats of ill-informed armchairs..To what extent this might apply to common readings of MB I have no idea, which is why I plan to read it again with a more critical eye.</blockquote>