Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grendel_Khan" data-source="post: 8445287" data-attributes="member: 7028554">Before the usual battle lines get drawn too deeply, help me understand something.[USER=7023840]@Snarf Zagyg[/USER] in your OP, referring to another thread you had started, you said:Another thread, ostensibly about one thing (discussing the division of narrative authority within 5e) turned into another thing (jargon-filled general discussion about RPG theory).How is that second thing really all that different or unexpected or undesirable, compared to thing one? "Division of narrative authority within 5e" is about as complex and involved as it gets, so why wouldn't that wind up getting into theory, and especially theory that uses other games and their approaches for context? To me that would be like wanting to discuss narrative point of view in James Bond movies, and being aghast when someone talks about how that's handled in le Carre or Bourne movies, or how spy shows and miniseries do it differently. Or even pulling examples and techniques from totally different genres. Isn't that just how discussions and analyses go, if they don't peter out? Analysis of horror movies has been enriched by analysis of comedy movies (since they sometimes share a surprising number of approaches). Indie film movements have changed the way Hollywood movies are edited and paced, and digging into those relationships can deepen appreciation of those mainstream movies, even if someone finds those lesser-watched films aren't their thing. I can't think of a discussion I've had about anything creative that, given enough time and depth, hasn't started to draw connections and context from other works. That's what professors do, what written criticism does--I'd argue it's how humans understand creative output and activities, and the world more generally, through informed comparisons. How is doing that with RPGs a problem?Or is this really just about the challenges posed by jargon?If that's what this is about, I think we can have a more focused discussion, though maybe sort of a boring one: Jargon, y/n? But right now it feels like you've started another thread that's almost tailor-made--based on the length of the OP and choice of topic but also lack of specific stance--to trigger the exact dynamic you're criticizing.To me, that other thread (which is still going) is contentious but interesting. But you bailed out of that one--as is your right, obviously--early on. So here's what I want to know, in all sincerity: What sort of discussion do you want to have, or that you think is worthwhile? Or was this more an airing of frustration that's wound up doing what frustrates you in the first place?If I didn't know better, I'd think you might be a master of instigating food fights and then appearing after the fact to decry the terrible mess that others have made. I don't necessarily think that's what's happening, but I'm not Not seeing a certain twinkle in your eye...</blockquote>

Verification