Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7629832" data-attributes="member: 5142"><p>People spend their entires lives using imprecise definitions to prove things, including nearly the entire enterprise of academia. If academia has taught me anything so far, it's that useful definitions are hardly as precise (or meaningful) as people often like to imagine them being, especially when it involves people arguing on the internet. It's usually about finding serviceable, sufficient, and workable definitions that broadly describe (<em>and not dogmatically prescribe</em>) phenomenon. Meanwhile, the entire field of cognitive linguistics would be quick to point out that "meaning" is far from precise, with the field as a whole favoring (what they generally refer to as) "encyclopedic semantics" over "lexical semantics." In other words, the meaning of a thing (word, concept, etc.) is less dependent on lexical definitions, but, rather, on the larger body of knowledge, experiences, cultural/historical associations, and its various related, connected concepts. </p><p></p><p>I kinda think that you're "Saelorning" on this issue right now. If you are arguing something that causes the likes of Pemerton, Tony Vargas, Elfcrusher, Maxperson, Ovinomancer, and hawkeyefan to collectively unite in their disagreement with you, then you have to wonder how badly you screwed up if the Justice League and the Legion of Doom have teamed-up against you. (I'll let them fight it out who belongs to which team in this scenario. It doesn't matter.) </p><p></p><p>How does presuming a correct definition (essentially begging the question) in the face of multiple forms of counter evidence solve anything, especially when most people here seem to disagree with it? If anything, your attempt to impose your restricted notion of a "roleplaying mechanic" appears to have instead propagated more problems that it solved. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/erm.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":erm:" title="Erm :erm:" data-shortname=":erm:" /> </p><p></p><p>So do you adjust your definition with the evidence or do you go Seymour Skinner on us by rejecting your own possibility for error and declaring that everyone else must be wrong? <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p>I think that it has more to do with the growing recognition among even roleplayers that human beings are irrational, biological creatures who are psychologically pushed and pulled in ways beyond even what they can rationally act upon. Roleplaying games are also about emulating certain facets of the human experience, including such things. As [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] said, our impulses and our ideals do not necessarily match. The roleplaying is not necessarily about choosing whether or not we have these impulses but what we do when faced with them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7629832, member: 5142"] People spend their entires lives using imprecise definitions to prove things, including nearly the entire enterprise of academia. If academia has taught me anything so far, it's that useful definitions are hardly as precise (or meaningful) as people often like to imagine them being, especially when it involves people arguing on the internet. It's usually about finding serviceable, sufficient, and workable definitions that broadly describe ([I]and not dogmatically prescribe[/I]) phenomenon. Meanwhile, the entire field of cognitive linguistics would be quick to point out that "meaning" is far from precise, with the field as a whole favoring (what they generally refer to as) "encyclopedic semantics" over "lexical semantics." In other words, the meaning of a thing (word, concept, etc.) is less dependent on lexical definitions, but, rather, on the larger body of knowledge, experiences, cultural/historical associations, and its various related, connected concepts. I kinda think that you're "Saelorning" on this issue right now. If you are arguing something that causes the likes of Pemerton, Tony Vargas, Elfcrusher, Maxperson, Ovinomancer, and hawkeyefan to collectively unite in their disagreement with you, then you have to wonder how badly you screwed up if the Justice League and the Legion of Doom have teamed-up against you. (I'll let them fight it out who belongs to which team in this scenario. It doesn't matter.) How does presuming a correct definition (essentially begging the question) in the face of multiple forms of counter evidence solve anything, especially when most people here seem to disagree with it? If anything, your attempt to impose your restricted notion of a "roleplaying mechanic" appears to have instead propagated more problems that it solved. :erm: So do you adjust your definition with the evidence or do you go Seymour Skinner on us by rejecting your own possibility for error and declaring that everyone else must be wrong? ;) I think that it has more to do with the growing recognition among even roleplayers that human beings are irrational, biological creatures who are psychologically pushed and pulled in ways beyond even what they can rationally act upon. Roleplaying games are also about emulating certain facets of the human experience, including such things. As [MENTION=23935]Nagol[/MENTION] said, our impulses and our ideals do not necessarily match. The roleplaying is not necessarily about choosing whether or not we have these impulses but what we do when faced with them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Players choose what their PCs do . . .
Top