Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 8933621" data-attributes="member: 6785785">And I also said the following, which you conveniently snipped. I am interested in hearing to learn others' opinions. That they won't match mine exactly is expected. Whether I would offer a counter or not would depend on whether I agreed with them or not. If I agree, I may offer my own insights. If I disagree, I may do that as well. I already answered this, but I'll expand. The idea was put forth by [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] that RPG designers may not have any more to offer on RPG design than the rest of us. Then [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] countered that Vincent Baker created In A Wicked Age, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Apocalypse World and that likely gives him some specific insight beyond those who have not designed such games, and asked if we would ignore the input of a person with such expertise in other fields. To which [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] said yes, we would do so when there is &quot;no standard of what counts as technical excellence&quot;.So then I asked if we can't collectively acknowledge that Apocalypse World would count as an example of technical excellence. My point was not about &quot;winning the significance argument&quot;. I feel like that take ignores the trajectory of the conversation that led to that point. It's more about the attempt to find some common ground in the form of an example of technical excellence. It could have been Sandy Petersen or Greg Stafford or Ken Hite or any number of other people and their games. They could have been mentioned as perhaps having more (or at least significant) insight than most of us about RPGs, as well. And yes, a critical framework can be applied regardless of whether a game is significant or not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hawkeyefan, post: 8933621, member: 6785785"] And I also said the following, which you conveniently snipped. I am interested in hearing to learn others' opinions. That they won't match mine exactly is expected. Whether I would offer a counter or not would depend on whether I agreed with them or not. If I agree, I may offer my own insights. If I disagree, I may do that as well. I already answered this, but I'll expand. The idea was put forth by [USER=29398]@Lanefan[/USER] that RPG designers may not have any more to offer on RPG design than the rest of us. Then [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] countered that Vincent Baker created In A Wicked Age, Dogs in the Vineyard, and Apocalypse World and that likely gives him some specific insight beyond those who have not designed such games, and asked if we would ignore the input of a person with such expertise in other fields. To which [USER=7026617]@Thomas Shey[/USER] said yes, we would do so when there is "no standard of what counts as technical excellence". So then I asked if we can't collectively acknowledge that Apocalypse World would count as an example of technical excellence. My point was not about "winning the significance argument". I feel like that take ignores the trajectory of the conversation that led to that point. It's more about the attempt to find some common ground in the form of an example of technical excellence. It could have been Sandy Petersen or Greg Stafford or Ken Hite or any number of other people and their games. They could have been mentioned as perhaps having more (or at least significant) insight than most of us about RPGs, as well. And yes, a critical framework can be applied regardless of whether a game is significant or not. [/QUOTE]

Verification