Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8960191" data-attributes="member: 6696971">What you're seeing above here is not &quot;my proposed structure having a hole in it.&quot;&nbsp; What you're registering is your deeply-internalized belief of the assertion you make directly below being challenged by a proposition (more on that below):&nbsp;On the first bold word, I'm not &quot;assuming.&quot;&nbsp; I'm &quot;proposing.&quot;&nbsp; My proposition is &quot;what if there is design tightness and resistance to (foundational - you omitted this) modification in a TTRPG system (just as there is in biological systems, plenty of engineered systems and in plenty of art).” You've inverted what is happening here.&nbsp; You are assuming that there is no such thing as a level of design tightness and resistance to modification.&nbsp; You then index this assumption (that, given our interactions over the years, is clearly the cornerstone of your ideas around TTRPGs) when you relate your ideas on &quot;the essential philosophy/culture of TTRPGs (or something like it)&quot; directly thereafter (the second bolded part after &quot;assuming&quot;).Your position (which I already knew) is &quot;there is no such thing as system's say (or designer's say) because GM.&quot;I already knew that about you.&nbsp; I'm curious why that is.So this is actually useful to our conversation.&nbsp; This is what I was trying to tease out.So, beyond the TTRPG essentialism/&quot;beating heart of TTRPGing&quot; you're espousing above (and have espoused many times before), you're actually talking about how the sausage is made here.&nbsp; So, presumably, the driver's experience, music consumption, and art consumption might/would all change, at the macro-cultural level (just as you've specified your idea of a macro-cultural essentialism of TTRPGs), if humans felt (I use the term &quot;felt&quot; here very deliberately) that they had the &quot;the chops&quot; &amp; means (skills, tools, kit).&nbsp; All cars, music, and art would change status from &quot;completed works&quot; to something like &quot;pending DIY projects?&quot;&nbsp; Do you think that might occur?&nbsp; If you don't think that might occur, maybe break out why TTRPGs are particularly unique here in the way that cars &amp; driving experience and music and art consumption are not (indexing the owner/primary participant relationship with them if you would...because that most closely maps to something like your personal usage of &quot;GM&quot;).Can you engage with those questions/propositions above?* In case its not clear why I used &quot;felt&quot; above, I would hope its abundantly clear that the human expert class is overrun with a hubris that renders their perception of their own expertise significantly more a burden than a boon (even in the discipline that they're supposed to be an expert in).&nbsp; Ironically (given that you believe GMs DIYing is the backbone, or near enough, of TTRPGing), I would say GMs in the TTRPG community are like the paragon of this phenomenon.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8960191, member: 6696971"] What you're seeing above here is not "my proposed structure having a hole in it." What you're registering is your deeply-internalized belief of the assertion you make directly below being challenged by a proposition (more on that below): On the first bold word, I'm not "assuming." I'm "proposing." My proposition is "what if there is design tightness and resistance to ([I]foundational [/I]- you omitted this) modification in a TTRPG system (just as there is in biological systems, plenty of engineered systems and in plenty of art).” You've inverted what is happening here. [B]You [/B]are [B]assuming that there is no such thing as a level of design tightness and resistance to modification[/B]. You then index this assumption (that, given our interactions over the years, is clearly the cornerstone of your ideas around TTRPGs) when you relate your ideas on "the essential philosophy/culture of TTRPGs (or something like it)" directly thereafter (the second bolded part after "assuming"). Your position (which I already knew) is "there is no such thing as [I]system's say ([/I]or [I]designer's say)[/I] [B]because GM."[/B] I already knew that about you. I'm curious why that is. So [I]this [/I]is actually useful to our conversation. [I]This [/I]is what I was trying to tease out. So, beyond the TTRPG essentialism/"beating heart of TTRPGing" you're espousing above (and have espoused many times before), you're actually talking about how the sausage is made here. So, presumably, the driver's experience, music consumption, and art consumption might/would all change, at the macro-cultural level (just as you've specified your idea of a macro-cultural essentialism of TTRPGs), if humans [I]felt [/I](I use the term "felt" here very deliberately) that they had the "the chops" & means (skills, tools, kit). All cars, music, and art would change status from "completed works" to something like "pending DIY projects?" Do you think that might occur? If you don't think that might occur, maybe break out why TTRPGs are particularly unique here in the way that cars & driving experience and music and art consumption are not (indexing the owner/primary participant relationship with them if you would...because that most closely maps to something like your personal usage of "GM"). Can you engage with those questions/propositions above? * In case its not clear why I used "felt" above, I would hope its abundantly clear that the human expert class is overrun with a hubris that renders their perception of their own expertise significantly more a burden than a boon (even in the discipline that they're supposed to be an expert in). Ironically (given that you believe GMs DIYing is the backbone, or near enough, of TTRPGing), I would say GMs in the TTRPG community are like the [B]paragon of this phenomenon[/B]. [/QUOTE]

Verification