Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8451629" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I don't know about you, but I've seen where that leads 1 too many times.&nbsp; It's never productive.&nbsp; It's what leads to the kinds of repeated arguments we have here and that Snarf has helpfully shown are not actually new.Because if you get to use the terms you think are relevant than I get to use the terms I think are relevant and in the end it turns into both sides just bad mouthing games/styles they don't like (or arguing about semantics).&nbsp; For my styles I've seen, 'mother may I', 'railroading', 'less agency'.&nbsp; For others styles I think the worst is probably, 'that's not an rpg'.&nbsp; But I'm sure there's many others you can tell me about.What good does telling my my playstyle is mother may I or me telling you that your not even playing an rpg do?&nbsp; I'd love to know how you forsee that ending productively.So by all means critique but think about whether a) the critique is going to be producitve and b) whether all the parties involved are even at the place of being able accept critiques to their playstyles.&nbsp; Most people are good to critique other playstyles but don't do so well when their own gets critiqued.Many claim their subjectiveness is actually objectivity.Why do you get to define the terms instead of them?&nbsp; If the terms don't matter then why not let them define them all and you just use whatever terms they want to sue?&nbsp; Is this actually a case of language limitations impacting the limits of the thought/discussion.&nbsp; If all the terms support the other sides 'theory' then how can you ever get your idea across to them in a way they can understand and that does justice to your theory.&nbsp; Seems to me like there's potential here for understanding why people care about what often gets called 'semantics' in these discussions.But that goes both ways and it becomes increasingly harder to do the more encompassing your theory is because your ideas about 'X' tie into other parts of your theory, framework and thought processes.&nbsp; At some point it really is like you are speaking a language that has no words for opposing theories concepts, framework and thought processes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8451629, member: 6795602"] I don't know about you, but I've seen where that leads 1 too many times. It's never productive. It's what leads to the kinds of repeated arguments we have here and that Snarf has helpfully shown are not actually new. Because if you get to use the terms you think are relevant than I get to use the terms I think are relevant and in the end it turns into both sides just bad mouthing games/styles they don't like (or arguing about semantics). For my styles I've seen, 'mother may I', 'railroading', 'less agency'. For others styles I think the worst is probably, 'that's not an rpg'. But I'm sure there's many others you can tell me about. What good does telling my my playstyle is mother may I or me telling you that your not even playing an rpg do? I'd love to know how you forsee that ending productively. So by all means critique but think about whether a) the critique is going to be producitve and b) whether all the parties involved are even at the place of being able accept critiques to their playstyles. Most people are good to critique other playstyles but don't do so well when their own gets critiqued. Many claim their subjectiveness is actually objectivity. Why do you get to define the terms instead of them? If the terms don't matter then why not let them define them all and you just use whatever terms they want to sue? Is this actually a case of language limitations impacting the limits of the thought/discussion. If all the terms support the other sides 'theory' then how can you ever get your idea across to them in a way they can understand and that does justice to your theory. Seems to me like there's potential here for understanding why people care about what often gets called 'semantics' in these discussions. But that goes both ways and it becomes increasingly harder to do the more encompassing your theory is because your ideas about 'X' tie into other parts of your theory, framework and thought processes. At some point it really is like you are speaking a language that has no words for opposing theories concepts, framework and thought processes. [/QUOTE]

Verification