Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8630212" data-attributes="member: 70468">I don’t think that follows. Just because a theory lacks popularity in a particular group does not mean it is likely minimally useful for them. There may be other reasons — such as sour grapes over how that alternative theory categorizes things and the seeming slight of their preferred agenda by lumping it in with a seemingly disparate one. Consequently, should one try to engage that group using the ill-favored theory, it will be met with dismissal and hostility. So, again, why bother engaging?And, to be clear, I’ll again reiterate that I don’t like how Purist for System and High Concept get lumped together under Right to Dream (or Simulationism or whatever). It was a large stumbling block for me for a long time since I lean more towards the former in spite of generally running systems oriented towards the latter (i.e., some form of D&amp;D). It’s only recently that I really started to understand the distinction and how that matters for the “campaign is a science experiment” style of play I’m trying to do.I should also add that I think it is very unhelpful that what we have to reference are these old essays rather than something reflective of the continued discourse. For example, if not for [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] , I’d have no idea that setting-centric Story Now was even a thing. If that were enumerated as another style in the essay, it might also seem less arbitrary that Right to Dream was grouped together the way it is, and Story Now might not seem as narrowly focused either.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 8630212, member: 70468"] I don’t think that follows. Just because a theory lacks popularity in a particular group does not mean it is likely minimally useful for them. There may be other reasons — such as sour grapes over how that alternative theory categorizes things and the seeming slight of their preferred agenda by lumping it in with a seemingly disparate one. Consequently, should one try to engage that group using the ill-favored theory, it will be met with dismissal and hostility. So, again, why bother engaging? And, to be clear, I’ll again reiterate that I don’t like how Purist for System and High Concept get lumped together under Right to Dream (or Simulationism or whatever). It was a large stumbling block for me for a long time since I lean more towards the former in spite of generally running systems oriented towards the latter (i.e., some form of D&D). It’s only recently that I really started to understand the distinction and how that matters for the “campaign is a science experiment” style of play I’m trying to do. I should also add that I think it is very unhelpful that what we have to reference are these old essays rather than something reflective of the continued discourse. For example, if not for [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] , I’d have no idea that setting-centric Story Now was even a thing. If that were enumerated as another style in the essay, it might also seem less arbitrary that Right to Dream was grouped together the way it is, and Story Now might not seem as narrowly focused either. [/QUOTE]

Verification