RPG Theory- The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World

[hawkeyefan]

People like what they like. You can’t force someone to like something. You can expose them to a piece of work, but if they don’t like it, that’s the way it is. You can’t talk them out of it.

And yeah, I think that is not only a valuable insight, I also believe that if people not only understood it, but tried to apply it, they would find their relationships and lives a lot happier.

Two things on this. First, I would say that most of the disagreements that we get into aren’t really about what people like, but rather why they like them, or why they don’t like something else. Or sometimes why they think they won’t like something else.

Second, I think the quote is useful as a general guideline, but at the same time, I know I’ve changed my mind plenty of times about movies or books or games, and very often this is due to some input from other people. Some offered insight or new angle, or even just through discussion with someone who enjoys something can be enlightening.

Now, that’s not to say the goal of a conversation should specifically be to try and change someone’s mind, but no, I don't agree that people like what they like and never change.

Personally, I love to have fun! If someone tells me a game will be fun, I will be a lot more likely to play it. Sometime later, I might unpack why it was fun, maybe. But yeah, fun is a pretty big goal and a good selling point in a hobby.

What do you say when someone asks you to play a game that’s not fun?

That's an interesting point to make! I mean, it would seem counter-productive for someone to repeatedly spend a lot of their own time creating and starting threads with the purpose of ending discussion.

You started the thread, sure, and I think you often introduce interesting ideas for discussion. But that doesn’t mean you get to own the discussion. I mean, you said in response to someone who disagreed with you that “everything that needs to be said was in the OP”.

In the authoritah thread that you started, you showed back up later on to lament what had happened to it. But there was actually plenty that was being discussed that was both relevant to the topic and perfectly cordial. You never responded to any of that nor even acknowledged it. You just lamented the entire thread.

People disagree. It’s okay. This seems to be one of your big things. But when people disagree with you, from what I’ve seen, you seem to struggle with that. You get standoffish and passive aggressive like the post I’ve quoted above, and eventually you kind of do the whole “well I guess you care a lot more than me, so bye ”.

I mean, look at how you started this thread. About the topic? Nope….by calling others out.

 

[Manbearcat]

@Manbearcat might rake me over the coals for this, but I think games like Torchbearer and Freebooters on the Frontier share old school aesthetics, but have a pretty different playstyle.

Not sure that I disagree, but I’d need to hear more!

My old school play is Pawn Stance delving or “just north of Pawn Stance” Hexcrawling.

TB is nothing like that:

* It’s significantly more brutal.

* It’s significantly more personal (to the PCs and to the Town).


Which is why I always go back to Darkest Dungeon (which TB clearly inspired)! TB is about (mechanically and thematically) discovering the Nature (capital) of desperate adventurers in a brutally punishing crucible that grinds them to dust.

D&D ain’t that!

 

[Aldarc]

I don't feel the need to detail my personal history, nor do I think it's the same issue you do. I simply will re-state what I said previously- I don't find that language appropriate for a conversation about gaming preferences. This isn't about shaming you, or anyone else. I just think that using the language in contexts that are not appropriate devalues it when it is most certainly appropriate. You can choose how and when to use the language you want- I just registered why I believe it is unhelpful in the current context. I am sorry that you feel frustrated that you are not heard- but I don't think the comparison is helpful.

Then what appropriate language or context am I permitted to use so that I can effectively communicate the real frustration of my lived experiences to you so that you can understand where I am coming from? If you genuinely feel sorry, then there should be no need to so utterly and quickly dismiss it with 'I am sorry you feel that way, but..." You feel sorry that I feel that way, BUT you wanna remind me again of how I was wrong to use the language that I did? Thanks, I guess. Maybe it was well-intended; however, I do hope you understand why "I'm sorry you feel that way, but..." tends to be counterproductive in discussions and can across as unsympathetic.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Since I am the person who uses that phrase most often, perhaps I should explain it.

When I use it, I am referring to the settled law of Judge John Hodgman. The full phrasing as the following:

People like what they like. You can’t force someone to like something. You can expose them to a piece of work, but if they don’t like it, that’s the way it is. You can’t talk them out of it.

And yeah, I think that is not only a valuable insight, I also believe that if people not only understood it, but tried to apply it, they would find their relationships and lives a lot happier.

At the core is a very simple notion- everyone is not the same. People can have different subjective tastes. If not, we would all have the same hobbies, tastes, and art preferences- for example. More importantly, someone can be really smart, be really knowledgeable about a topic, engage in totally good faith ... and still disagree with you.

If most people think about this for even a second, really really think about this, they know it to be true. Two people who both love movies and film criticism, one who loves Wes Anderson and one who doesn't. Or you can see this in your personal life- maybe you love watching bad horror movies, and your significant other doesn't. Or they love Ornette Coleman, and you don't.

In the end, all you can ask is for someone to try something that you love- to share that experience. And if they don't like it, all the talk in the world isn't going to change their mind. You can't force someone to love what you love.

Hodgman also routinely and hilariously lambasts many things, including extremely popular. stuff The context from him that you included is useful, but also (imo) gets to the heart of why that sort of point is pointless in practice, if not worse. If used as a response to criticism or analysis (that isn't purely effusive praise) it simultaneously casts those critics/analyzers as meanbad jerks trying to change your mind. It assumes that the point of any discussion is to sway someone to your side, not to explore, to challenge, to see what happens.

We see this all the time with responses to movie critics. In fact, it happened over on the Ghostbusters: Afterlife thread--the usual dismissal of critics, in the context that the only job of a critic is news-you-can-use, a recommendation to see or not to see. Critics, in other words, are just trying to convince you to share their opinion of a work. So when they don't like the popular thing someone likes, they're pushy snobs with an agenda. When they rave (or at least largely praise) the subject of some large-scale fandom, well they've finally hung up their berets and black turtlenecks and realized the true value of popular entertainment.

Do you see how stifling and anti-intellectual that sort of reaction is, to take criticism and analysis that isn't pure celebration as a rhetorical assault, and an attempt to take away other people's toys?

Even if you disagree with that assessment, when have you ever seen "People like what they like" have an impact that isn't awkward or worse? Hodgman will often use it as part of preambles to scathing takedowns of a thing, to establish that it's all in the context of "this isn't for me." But, with that established, he doesn't pull punches. And he doesn't use it as an actual standalone retort or response.

The more I think about People like what they like, the more it haunts me. It's a black hole. It's the end.

You're in a group of people comparing the Justice League movie to the Snyder Cut--what some of them thinks works, what some hate, that some don't like either. You decide to chime in:

"Hey, guys...People like what they like."

People are discussed Moby Dick, whether its innovations and genuine weirdness outweigh how long the damn book is, whether it should still be considered in the canon or not, whether it should ever have been assigned in schools, why one person in the group thinks it's the greatest novel ever written and another despises it." You've waited long enough:

"Have you considered that...People like what they like?"

You're discussing 5e. The discussion is passionate. Some people are praising its big tent appeal. Others are criticizing its mechanics. You brace yourself, and dust it off, one more time.

"People like what they like."


No response ever makes sense. Do you ignore it? But it's an accusation that can't be dealt with without sounding suspiciously defensive. You can get mad, but that just feeds it. You can move on, awkwardly, but it'll come up again (as it has here, as it always does). It's such a powerful, inexorable platitude that it can't be engaged with. It's the shimmer from Annihilation. It's Solaris rewiring your mental reality. It can't be resisted or escaped.

I have to go now. I think I hear People like what they like somewhere in the house. It's watching a Hallmark Christmas movie downstairs and really liking that it likes what it likes and liking that if you're so foolish as to say you don't like what it likes you should really keep in mind that

People like what they like.

 

[Manbearcat]

Hodgman also routinely and hilariously lambasts many things, including extremely popular. stuff The context from him that you included is useful, but also (imo) gets to the heart of why that sort of point is pointless in practice, if not worse. If used as a response to criticism or analysis (that isn't purely effusive praise) it simultaneously casts those critics/analyzers as meanbad jerks trying to change your mind. It assumes that the point of any discussion is to sway someone to your side, not to explore, to challenge, to see what happens.

We see this all the time with responses to movie critics. In fact, it happened over on the Ghostbusters: Afterlife thread--the usual dismissal of critics, in the context that the only job of a critic is news-you-can-use, a recommendation to see or not to see. Critics, in other words, are just trying to convince you to share their opinion of a work. So when they don't like the popular thing someone likes, they're pushy snobs with an agenda. When they rave (or at least largely praise) the subject of some large-scale fandom, well they've finally hung up their berets and black turtlenecks and realized the true value of popular entertainment.

Do you see how stifling and anti-intellectual that sort of reaction is, to take criticism and analysis that isn't pure celebration as a rhetorical assault, and an attempt to take away other people's toys?

Even if you disagree with that assessment, when have you ever seen "People like what they like" have an impact that isn't awkward or worse? Hodgman will often use it as part of preambles to scathing takedowns of a thing, to establish that it's all in the context of "this isn't for me." But, with that established, he doesn't pull punches. And he doesn't use it as an actual standalone retort or response.

The more I think about People like what they like, the more it haunts me. It's a black hole. It's the end.

You're in a group of people comparing the Justice League movie to the Snyder Cut--what some of them thinks works, what some hate, that some don't like either. You decide to chime in:

"Hey, guys...People like what they like."

People are discussed Moby Dick, whether its innovations and genuine weirdness outweigh how long the damn book is, whether it should still be considered in the canon or not, whether it should ever have been assigned in schools, why one person in the group thinks it's the greatest novel ever written and another despises it." You've waited long enough:

"Have you considered that...People like what they like?"

You're discussing 5e. The discussion is passionate. Some people are praising its big tent appeal. Others are criticizing its mechanics. You brace yourself, and dust it off, one more time.

"People like what they like."


No response ever makes sense. Do you ignore it? But it's an accusation that can't be dealt with without sounding suspiciously defensive. You can get mad, but that just feeds it. You can move on, awkwardly, but it'll come up again (as it has here, as it always does). It's such a powerful, inexorable platitude that it can't be engaged with. It's the shimmer from Annihilation. It's Solaris rewiring your mental reality. It can't be resisted or escaped.

I have to go now. I think I hear People like what they like somewhere in the house. It's watching a Hallmark Christmas movie downstairs and really liking that it likes what it likes and liking that if you're so foolish as to say you don't like what it likes you should really keep in mind that

People like what they like.

Look man.

People like what they like.

And remember to play to have fun.

This public service announcement is brought to you by “People Who Think They Like What They Don’t Like and Keep Accidentally Playing Games to Be Bored.”

EDIT - Oh and I hated King of Limbs until I listened to it 4 times and then I thought it was a masterpiece. I’ve had that experience, and the inverse, dozens of times in my life.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

My brain can't really handle multi-snip nested exchanges--which imo can get weirder and more unwieldy as a thread progresses--so just wanted to talk about this separately.

As has been said repeatedly, it would be odd to not analyze something that is popular. Most people would agree that "superhero movies" as a genre are popular, right? Do you think it would be weird if, every time on enworld (on in society as a whole), people wanted to discuss and critique superhero films, the conversation got derailed because someone brought up Lars von Trier and everyone started arguing about Dogme 95?

I do!

If people were in the process of critiquing superhero movies--digging into the specific approaches and techniques and even film theory behind them--I would be thrilled if someone made a meaningful and relevant connection to Dogme 95. Given enough time and detail I think lots of discussions of creative works wind up exploring influences (which, perish the thought, aren't "category leaders" or financial juggernauts) and examples that are at the margins of a given field or medium.

And in discussing the MCU it's not at all weird to imagine talking about lesser-seen or indie movies. Is anything in Eternals reminiscent of Nomadland or The Rider, when you consider how different it is (or isn't) from other MCU works. Does Guardians of the Galaxy seem like an artistic compromise compared to The Suicide Squad, given how bonkers and iconoclastic Super is? And are Fruitvale Station's fingerprints anywhere in Black Panther, other than the director wanting to continue working with Michael B. Jordan? And never mind connecting the dots that directly between directors' MCU and pre-MCU work--do current superhero movies draw their visual language and tones from much older, non-supers movies, or is there really a house style, similar to how most TV shows lock in a look during the pilot and different directors--even distinctive ones like Tarantino, when he did ER--are brought in largely to just keep things moving, because they at least aren't going to screw up the production's well-oiled machine?

Those are all, I propose, legitimate topics of discussion related to superhero movies, that might get to some interesting places assuming people don't assume it's pretentious to try to make associations and connections beyond whether Thor: The Dark World is worse than Iron Man 3.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Welp, looks like I caught an Ignore or somesuch.

Not sure how that works, exactly, so I'll just be over here liking what I like like my like depended on it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Welp, looks like I caught an Ignore or somesuch.

Not sure how that works, exactly, so I'll just be over here liking what I like like my like depended on it.

It appears some people like to ignore others who may disagree with them! Have to respect that!

 

[heretic888]

It appears some people like to ignore others who may disagree with them! Have to respect that!

No lie. I'm not even posting in this thread and I was put on ignore too, apparently for just "liking" posts somebody disagreed with. Draw your own conclusions from that.

 

[Manbearcat]

There is something amusingly ironic about blocking everyone (so you can’t interact with them, thereby reducing your interaction space) in a thread titled The Limits of My Language are the Limits of My World!