Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8248002" data-attributes="member: 18">I think you might be trapping yourself here mate lol.You set out pretty good criteria - specifically when people dislike stuff just because they perceive it, correctly or not, as &quot;old&quot;. Someone suggested &quot;The Cult of the New&quot; as a name and I think that's fine. I've seen that in various media. I spoke to a man-child once who claimed that he would never watch a movie made before 2000 (this was in like 2012), because there &quot;was no point&quot; and all the stuff before that all sucked. He also claimed to be a movie buff/cinephile (!!!). I literally saw him posting four-five years later raving about 1960s cinema, so clearly he grew out of that little patch of insanity.With D&amp;D, I did think of an example, on reddit I saw someone basically say &quot;Ugh, rolling stats, that's lame and for old people and it's literally impossible to run a good game if you do!&quot;, and whilst there are tons of valid reasons to not roll stats, that's not really one of them. Yet it's obviously an example of what you described.Whereas with, say, racial attribute bonuses, I've never seen anyone, anywhere say &quot;Ugh, racial attribute bonuses, they're dumb and for old people!&quot;, rather people, some of them quite aged, like 43-year-old-me, say &quot;Well I think it's fine to remove them because X Y and Z&quot;. Even if I was 23, it wouldn't be &quot;Cult of the New&quot; unless the fact that they were old was the reason to object.That's what you'd need to capture - examples where &quot;X thing is old, therefore X thing sucks&quot;, and where there's not really any more reasoning. Not like different opinions, just dismissal of stuff because it's old or new.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8248002, member: 18"] I think you might be trapping yourself here mate lol. You set out pretty good criteria - specifically when people dislike stuff just because they perceive it, correctly or not, as "old". Someone suggested "The Cult of the New" as a name and I think that's fine. I've seen that in various media. I spoke to a man-child once who claimed that he would never watch a movie made before 2000 (this was in like 2012), because there "was no point" and all the stuff before that all sucked. He also claimed to be a movie buff/cinephile (!!!). I literally saw him posting four-five years later raving about 1960s cinema, so clearly he grew out of that little patch of insanity. With D&D, I did think of an example, on reddit I saw someone basically say "Ugh, rolling stats, that's lame and for old people and it's literally impossible to run a good game if you do!", and whilst there are tons of valid reasons to not roll stats, that's not really one of them. Yet it's obviously an example of what you described. Whereas with, say, racial attribute bonuses, I've never seen anyone, anywhere say "Ugh, racial attribute bonuses, they're dumb and for old people!", rather people, some of them quite aged, like 43-year-old-me, say "Well I think it's fine to remove them because X Y and Z". Even if I was 23, it wouldn't be "Cult of the New" [I]unless[/I] the fact that they were old was [I]the reason[/I] to object. That's what you'd need to capture - examples where "X thing is old, therefore X thing sucks", and where there's not really any more reasoning. Not like different opinions, just dismissal of stuff because it's old or new. [/QUOTE]

Verification