I just want to briefly explain my response to
@hawkeyefan earlier.
I’ve noticed a recurring pattern where posts—maybe unintentionally—come across as dismissive of other play styles, at least to me. I’ve even called out Micah Sweet earlier in this very thread for the same kind of thing.
This week, a member with over ten thousand posts left the forums, citing a “cantankerous” and “hostile” environment. That happened here, in this very discussion. And honestly, it’s left me reflecting. Reflecting on how I post and just in general.
Almost every interaction I’ve had on these forums has been overwhelmingly positive. The few exceptions have mostly been my own missteps. So maybe this is just my inexperience talking. Maybe I’m idealizing how things should be. Or maybe I still don’t fully understand the tone and rhythm of how this community communicates.
But I came here because many said this was the best place to have high-level, thoughtful discussion about the hobby. And most of the time, that’s exactly what I find. But when I read posts that sound like one group saying “I do what you do, but better,” it breaks that childish idealism a little.
That’s why I spoke up. Not to pick a fight, but because I care about this space, and I don’t want to see more people turned away from it. Especially, not people who's posts I've become accustom to reading day in and day out, like Hawkeye and Micah.
One member once said that sometimes they kick too many balls. Maybe this time, I kicked one I shouldn’t have.
I'm glad I stopped to read this, rather than focusing on the original reply, as it almost certainly would have resulted in
me kicking a ball I probably shouldn't.
I appreciate your explanation, but I think this reflects...well, a little bit of "he who fights monsters". That is, in your desire to defend high-level, thoughtful discussion, at least from where I'm sitting, you spoke in a way I very much considered "cantankerous" and "hostile". (I had, in fact, specifically used the word "hostile" in my initial response to that post, which I've deleted because it wouldn't be productive, now that I've seen this post which shows clear contrition and self-reflection.)
If it helps, I likewise apologize for my contributions to that user choosing to depart the forums. I regret that, plain and simple. I do think that referring to my posts as having "childish rage" toward anyone here was...well, another example of someone wanting to protect good discourse but engaging in bad discourse in order to do so...but that doesn't mean I'm now free of culpability here. I'm not. I contributed, and for that, I am sorry.
But, if I may try to pursue some of that high-level, thoughtful discussion, from where I'm sitting, what Micah's argument boiled down to is that, because
for him certain kinds of mechanics, procedures, and principles are insufficiently verisimilitudinous, that means:
(1)
all possible games, no matter how one conducts them, will be inherently un-verisimilitudinous if they use those things;
(2) any game to which any of these things is added will, in relatively short order, lose whatever verisimilitude it had;
and (3) consequently, it is not possible to improve nor add verisimilitude to a game that uses these things, they
must be abandoned for verisimilitude to exist (note:
not the same as saying only Micah's way
can produce it, just that this way
cannot do so).
In other words, again
from where I'm sitting, the cantankerous argument had already been made, that a particular set of tools is
inherently incompatible with any meaningful degree of verisimilitude (or "realism" or "world consistency" or whatever term you prefer). By those lights, responding, "Well...I actually
do produce a world which others recognize as being high in verisimilitude, while still using these techniques", does not in any way appear--again,
to me--like any kind of accusation. It is a defense
against the accusation that these tools are somehow antagonistic to the very possibility of verisimilitude/etc. in the first place.
As a result, I feel very frustrated, because
to me this feels like turning self-defense into aggression, and thus denying someone the right to defend their position and preferences because that defense has been characterized as an attack on someone else's preferences.
