Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9653289" data-attributes="member: 13383">The exception in my mind is figuring out what techniques work the best with your creative goals. That can be a good topic for discussion.That said, these conversations often get derailed by a few recurring issues:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Emotional overinvestment in one's preferred style</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Reframing everything in one's own terminology instead of trying to understand and use others’ terms in context</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Failing to acknowledge that different creative goals can lead to different, yet valid, sets of techniques</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Ignoring that the same technique can serve different purposes depending on context and emphasis</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Making false equivalences between approaches that serve fundamentally different ends</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Assuming bad faith instead of starting from a place of charitable interpretation</li>
</ul>For example, in Vincent Baker’s post, we find this:This doesn’t advance the core discussion about the role of character sheets. It frames anyone who disagrees as a conservative defending broken old traditions, suggesting they’re blinded to what he sees as the real issue. That’s not just a viewpoint; it’s a rhetorical strategy that shuts down debate.But if you strip that framing away, his actual point about character sheets supporting his creative goals is coherent and internally consistent.Is it a better way? No. It’s a way. It may suit the games he designs, but it’s not the only way to approach character sheets, even when it comes to his creative priorities.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="robertsconley, post: 9653289, member: 13383"] The exception in my mind is figuring out what techniques work the best with your creative goals. That can be a good topic for discussion. That said, these conversations often get derailed by a few recurring issues: [LIST] [*] Emotional overinvestment in one's preferred style [*] Reframing everything in one's own terminology instead of trying to understand and use others’ terms in context [*] Failing to acknowledge that different creative goals can lead to different, yet valid, sets of techniques [*] Ignoring that the same technique can serve different purposes depending on context and emphasis [*] Making false equivalences between approaches that serve fundamentally different ends [*] Assuming bad faith instead of starting from a place of charitable interpretation [/LIST] For example, in Vincent Baker’s post, we find this: This doesn’t advance the core discussion about the role of character sheets. It frames anyone who disagrees as a conservative defending broken old traditions, suggesting they’re blinded to what he sees as the real issue. That’s not just a viewpoint; it’s a rhetorical strategy that shuts down debate. But if you strip that framing away, his actual point about character sheets supporting his creative goals is coherent and internally consistent. Is it a better way? No. It’s a way. It may suit the games he designs, but it’s not the only way to approach character sheets, even when it comes to his creative priorities. [/QUOTE]

Verification