Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 8458746" data-attributes="member: 177">So, I wouldn't say we keep repeating conversations just because we do not remember.&nbsp; I think there's a stack of reasons, several of them not so complimentary, that contribute, and lack of a formal effort of teaching is only one of them.You talk about how they, &quot;help define the primary issues that people tend to care about.&quot;&nbsp; That brings us to a chicken-and-egg position - do we talk about these things because we care abut them, or do we care about them because these are the only things that get talked about?&nbsp; If our game preferences are strongly influenced by our first exposure to games, then it follows that our takes on game theory will be strongly influenced by our first exposure to game theories.&nbsp; As you yourself wrote previously - our language strongly influences our thoughts - it becomes hard to speak about other things, because this is the discussion we have language about!I specifically call out that you didn't say that these discussions help us DISCOVER what we care about - and you are correct not to say that, because they don't.&nbsp; Theory discussions around here are not about exploration.&nbsp; If they were about exploration, and we kept coming back to the same points, then I'd agree that we'd solidified around what really mattered.&nbsp; But, since we aren't really exploring the possible theory landscape, we aren't going to find anything in the discussions.And mine isn't an argument that, say, the Fourfold Way doesn't represent the basic real issues of RPGs. It is just that repeated internet argument about one set of things things doesn't itself indicate that those are THE THINGS that matter at our tables.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 8458746, member: 177"] So, I wouldn't say we keep repeating conversations [I]just[/I] because we do not remember. I think there's a stack of reasons, several of them not so complimentary, that contribute, and lack of a formal effort of teaching is only one of them. You talk about how they, "help define the primary issues that people tend to care about." That brings us to a chicken-and-egg position - do we talk about these things because we care abut them, or do we care about them because these are the only things that get talked about? If our game preferences are strongly influenced by our first exposure to games, then it follows that our takes on game theory will be strongly influenced by our first exposure to game theories. As you yourself wrote previously - our language strongly influences our thoughts - it becomes hard to speak about other things, because this is the discussion we have language about! I specifically call out that you [I]didn't[/I] say that these discussions help us DISCOVER what we care about - and you are correct not to say that, because they don't. Theory discussions around here are not about [I]exploration[/I]. If they were about exploration, and we kept coming back to the same points, then I'd agree that we'd solidified around what really mattered. But, since we aren't really exploring the possible theory landscape, we aren't going to [I]find[/I] anything in the discussions. And mine isn't an argument that, say, the Fourfold Way doesn't represent the basic real issues of RPGs. It is just that repeated internet argument about one set of things things doesn't itself indicate that those are THE THINGS that matter at our tables. [/QUOTE]

Verification