Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8935274" data-attributes="member: 42582">A further thought on this: part of the disciplinary training in my field (my core humanities training is in philosophy, with theoretical sociology on the side) is to learn to detach disagreements in analysis from personal convictions and relationships.This is why - for instance - I can supervise work that relies on Marx and supervise work that relies on Nozick and supervise work that defends cosmopolitanism and supervise work that defends nationalism. It's why I can referee favourably a piece that uses a methodological framework that I personally would reject in my own work. It's why I wasn't perturbed when the supervisor of my PhD explained why they completely rejected the premise from which my own work started.When, a couple of decades ago, I first read Ron Edwards essay about &quot;simulationist&quot; RPGing which explained why initiative is such a problem in this sort of game, and also why it is prone to produce anti-climax in play, I wasn't offended or insulted. My first thought was this explains why RM has probably double-digit different initiative systems spread over its editions and supplements. This didn't change my own approach to initiative; but the stuff on anti-climax did shape how I approached GMing after that, and it's thanks to Ron Edwards and Paul Czege that I was able to bring a 10+ year campaign to a successful resolution in a way I would not have been able to do before I read them.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8935274, member: 42582"] A further thought on this: part of the disciplinary training in my field (my core humanities training is in philosophy, with theoretical sociology on the side) is to learn to detach disagreements in analysis from personal convictions and relationships. This is why - for instance - I can supervise work that relies on Marx and supervise work that relies on Nozick and supervise work that defends cosmopolitanism and supervise work that defends nationalism. It's why I can referee favourably a piece that uses a methodological framework that I personally would reject in my own work. It's why I wasn't perturbed when the supervisor of my PhD explained why they completely rejected the premise from which my own work started. When, a couple of decades ago, I first read Ron Edwards essay about "simulationist" RPGing which explained why initiative is such a problem in this sort of game, and also why it is prone to produce anti-climax in play, I wasn't offended or insulted. My first thought was [i]this explains why RM has probably double-digit different initiative systems spread over its editions and supplements[/i]. This didn't change my own approach to initiative; but the stuff on anti-climax did shape how I approached GMing after that, and it's thanks to Ron Edwards and Paul Czege that I was able to bring a 10+ year campaign to a successful resolution in a way I would not have been able to do before I read them. [/QUOTE]

Verification