RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World
- Thread starter Snarf Zagyg
- Start date
So I don't know that the divide is worth going over again- but if a person self-identifies as a fan of something, then why not? I mean, who am I to judge? I thought this was the whole "high culture, low culture" thing we try to avoid.
I remember someone who told me that they loved comedy, and they loved Dane Cook (this was, oh, 12 years ago maybe?). Now, I have my own ... reservations ... and judgey judgey about that kind of statement, but hey- why not?
Hidden behind the verbiage I often see is the implicit assertion- once you know better, your taste will improve, and you will like the things that I do. I just don't agree with that. We've seen this time and again- "genre" films were disreputable, until Cahiers du Cinema. Pop culture wasn't high art- but what about Warhol or Lichtenstein? You have to understand art in order to make art. Unless it's outsider art. Or primitive art. Or ... whatever.
You get the idea. I live by a few, simple ideas-
1. People like what they like.
2. Elves are dead-eyed, soulless abominations.
3. It is better and easier to convince someone to try something by telling them that this is new thing is good and fun, than by trying to convince them that they are bad or ignorant for liking what they like.
4. There are only two things in the world that I cannot abide; people who are intolerant of the roleplaying choices of others, and bards.
5. It's better to try and understand the things that D&D is doing right, than to assume it is doing things wrong and people don't know better.
6. I don't know about you, but I take comfort knowing that he's out there. The Dude. Takin' er easy for all us sinners arguing on eworld.
See? Simple ideas, happy life.
Aldarc
Legend
I don’t think it’s so much a matter of knowing better “improves” one’s taste as it is understanding what the boundaries of your tastes are and being able to articulate those preferences better. I’m fine if people don’t like the board games that I do but, in my experience, when people play more games they have a better understanding of the sort of games they like. I also don’t expect that they will stop liking their initial set of games they liked.So I don't know that the divide is worth going over again- but if a person self-identifies as a fan of something, then why not? I mean, who am I to judge? I thought this was the whole "high culture, low culture" thing we try to avoid.
I remember someone who told me that they loved comedy, and they loved Dane Cook (this was, oh, 12 years ago maybe?). Now, I have my own ... reservations ... and judgey judgey about that kind of statement, but hey- why not?
Hidden behind the verbiage I often see is the implicit assertion- once you know better, your taste will improve, and you will like the things that I do. I just don't agree with that. We've seen this time and again- "genre" films were disreputable, until Cahiers du Cinema. Pop culture wasn't high art- but what about Warhol or Lichtenstein? You have to understand art in order to make art. Unless it's outsider art. Or primitive art. Or ... whatever.
You get the idea. I live by a few, simple ideas-
1. People like what they like.
2. Elves are dead-eyed, soulless abominations.
3. It is better and easier to convince someone to try something by telling them that this is new thing is good and fun, than by trying to convince them that they are bad or ignorant for liking what they like.
4. There are only two things in the world that I cannot abide; people who are intolerant of the roleplaying choices of others, and bards.
5. It's better to try and understand the things that D&D is doing right, than to assume it is doing things wrong and people don't know better.
6. I don't know about you, but I take comfort knowing that he's out there. The Dude. Takin' er easy for all us sinners arguing on eworld.
See? Simple ideas, happy life.
Sometimes! I've played a lot of different games, and I don't regret anything. NOTHING!
But I truly think that there are people (not the people currently talking, who are all smart, wise, and drink excellent Scotch I am sure) who can't seem to understand that there might be aspects of D&D and 5e that are incredibly appealing and that the games are massively popular not in spite of their design, but because of the design. The whole, "It's not a bug, it's a feature."
...and it seems bizarre to me that there is little effort spent on the elephant in the room; trying to come to grips with what lessons might be learned about why a particular game is so popular- is it truly just path dependency? Or are there additional reasons. That seems like a salient discussion. And it might also shed light on why D&D could never embrace some of the innovations we see in indie games.
Maybe.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
My take on that question.
Certain restaurants specialize on a particular kind of food and are spectacular with it, let's say Japanese in this case. Other restaurants have a more generic menu that everyone can order from and make a number of types of food decently well.
Even if the specialized restaurant has much better food, the other restaurant can may get more customers and ultimately be more profitable. Why? Because when you are getting a group of people to all go together, oftentimes having variety is more important than exceling at a single thing - because a) peoples tastes can vary day to day b) you aren't leaving anyone in the group out. Now if you are with a group that loves Japanese anytime, that Japanese restaurant is better suited for them, but for many groups that's not necessarily going to be the case.
I think D&D is popular because it's fairly flexible and can cater just enough to multiple people that the group decides its the right game for them even if it isn't necessarily the best. I think that's what helps make it popular, and especially so in a niche hobby where finding lots of people to game with isn't always easy. Now I do think familiarity and cost of entry keeps players from ever trying other games (cost is more learning curve/time, but may also be money). I mean, why spend 50 dollars on another game and dedicate numerous hours to learning it when you have something your group is enjoying that you've already spent 200 dollars on.
So it might be better to focus on what kind of players like D&D. Let's call them player archetypes. I'll leave creating those categories open.
Like this?
D&D 5E - 5e and the Cheesecake Factory: Explaining Good Enough
An idea I've been noodling around with for a few weeks is trying to understand not just "Why 5e," but "Why 5e?" To put it more bluntly; it would seem obvious (to me, at least) that D&D has been having a cultural moment, and capturing the zeitgeist, in a way that hasn't been seen since the prior...
www.enworld.org
Thomas Shey
Legend
I will just note that not all non-D&D games are specialized (and a lot of them aren't more specialized than D&D). I think there's a tendency to think there's D&D and some tightly focused games and ignore a lot of middle ground there (Savage Worlds, for example, is far from specialized).
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Sure. When we start talking 2 fairly generic games I think it's worth asking what one does different than the other that is driving it's success. Like, why has mcdonalds been more successful and continues to be more successful than most other fast food burger chains? Or getting back to RPG's. What's different about D&D and Savage Worlds and which of those things are propelling D&D's success over Savage Worlds?
D&D, IMO anyway, is maybe more specialized than it seems. That's not a bad thing, but I think that people overestimate the ability of the system to comfortably handle just about any kind of game. D&D is indelibly combat focused by the nature of its mechanics and subsystems, so styles that don't emphasize combat to some degree aren't really using the system to it's best advantage. 5E starts to chug a little when it gets too focused on social interaction and/or exploration (if you'll pardon the three pillar metaphor), as it does neither of those things particularly well. It does them, and not even badly exactly, just maybe not well.
In fairness, for a lot of people it's probably easier to use a system they know for something it's only OK at rather than using a new system that handles it better. That idea, more than anything else, is what I think drives a lot of the D&D for every occasion talk.
In fairness, for a lot of people it's probably easier to use a system they know for something it's only OK at rather than using a new system that handles it better. That idea, more than anything else, is what I think drives a lot of the D&D for every occasion talk.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Well I remember that thread. Now I don't know if you implanted the idea in my head months ago or if I came up with it independently. Dang You Snarfy.Like this?
D&D 5E - 5e and the Cheesecake Factory: Explaining Good Enough
An idea I've been noodling around with for a few weeks is trying to understand not just "Why 5e," but "Why 5e?" To put it more bluntly; it would seem obvious (to me, at least) that D&D has been having a cultural moment, and capturing the zeitgeist, in a way that hasn't been seen since the prior...
Similar Threads
