Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9223500" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I’m not trying to establish one set of norms over the other. In fact I’m trying to do the opposite.If you want to say some RPGs depend on negotiation and different conceptions of fiction to generate conflict then I fully agree.&nbsp; I’m good with that being normalized. It’s taking that from some to all that I find incorrect.I’ll also note that there’s typically A strong pushback anytime anyone someone suggests the d&amp;d play is better explained by different concepts than Bakers.My conclusion is then that I’m pushing back against the inaccurate descriptions and de-normalization of d&amp;d, which I don’t think is intended, but directionally this is what Bakerian explanations tend to do to many d&amp;d playstyles at least implicitly.I also fully agree with that last sentence.Edit: Also, I am curious what makes you think I am pushing for one set of norms over another?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 9223500, member: 6795602"] I’m not trying to establish one set of norms over the other. In fact I’m trying to do the opposite. If you want to say some RPGs depend on negotiation and different conceptions of fiction to generate conflict then I fully agree. I’m good with that being normalized. It’s taking that from some to all that I find incorrect. I’ll also note that there’s typically A strong pushback anytime anyone someone suggests the d&d play is better explained by different concepts than Bakers. My conclusion is then that I’m pushing back against the inaccurate descriptions and de-normalization of d&d, which I don’t think is intended, but directionally this is what Bakerian explanations tend to do to many d&d playstyles at least implicitly. I also fully agree with that last sentence. Edit: Also, I am curious what makes you think I am pushing for one set of norms over another? [/QUOTE]

Verification