Taking a Break

[Vurt]

I have zero problems with people not liking something. Heck, I understand that. My problem is when people couch their criticisms in buzz words that have a million different definitions. "It's not D&D" is a good one. What the heck does that really mean? "It's videogamey" is another good one. Does that mean that the game runs extremely smoothly and well and rarely has any play problems? Somehow I don't think so, yet, that would be a good definition of video-gamey.

The common word "quality" is one with a definition that is very hard to pin down--what does it mean, exactly, if I say I have quality furniture in my home, that it's expensive? well-made? old? ergonomic? not in need of replacement?--but that doesn't stop people from using the word and, more importantly, from other people getting a good enough idea as to the word's meaning that the conversation can continue.

To you, the exact nature of "videogame-y" is vague or broad, but maybe it's vagueness is why the word seems to have caught on, and why people will chime in and say, "Yup, I get that sense too," without having a perfect idea of what is being described.

And while I'd like to describe to you specifically why I might feel that way about certain games, I would hate to start an "edition war" over the topic or get this thread locked.

 

[Raven Crowking]

But if said DVD player was made by Sony, or some company that owns the Sony trademark, then it would be, by definition, a Sony DVD player.

That very much depends upon what is meant by "by definition". After all, if you refused to accept Candyland as D&D just because I owned both and slapped the D&D moniker on Candyland, it follows that your "definition" is, itself, subjective.

(Which is, btw, part of the nature of language. Any "precision" in language, upon investigation, is largely illusion.)


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

It was a poor choice to link that post, because it's not a good example at all. The poster does not actually explain why he says 4E is videogamey, because he doesn't say it's videogamey.

It's a good example of how reactionary the censorship urge is, though. The post is selected without actually reading it and/or understanding it as a good example of a bad post, regardless of actual contents or meaning.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Ok, now I'm being accused of censorship. Wow.

Not at all. Moderators have the ability to censor. You, thankfully, do not.

Attempting to control the words/phrases/expressions used by others, on the basis that the language is "vague" or otherwise, is attempted censorship. Or would you rather use some other, less clear, less well defined term for what you are attempting?

If I say "videogame-y", what I mean is "videogame-y". I have said what I meant. That you claim "vagueness" is besides the point. As I said previously, if you understand what is said well enough to be offended by it, your cries of "vagueness" sound rather more like "shut up!" than like "could you clarify that, please?"

"Could you clarify that, please?" is always valid.

"Don't use that phrase!" is not.

And, no one answered my question. If you use language that you know is inflamatory - be it stating that Edition X isn't D&D or whatever - REGARDLESS OF YOUR PERSONAL FEELINGS ON THE ISSUE, trolling? Isn't that trolling by definition?

As you know calling 4e "D&D" is inflammatory to some folks, would you agree that doing so is trolling? I wouldn't. And I have already answered your question on this basis.

You cannot both say "Say what you want to say" and "but don't use terms I don't like" in the same breath and expect anyone to not see it for what it is.


RC

 

[Rel]

A couple things here:

First, I think the continued discussion of the "tone of the board" is a fine topic for this thread. I think that comparisson between the flexibility and immersion of CRPG's vs. PnPRPG's is one that deserves its own thread and is rather off topic for this one.

In answer to the specific point raised about moderatorial heavy-handedness as it applies to the current situation, I can't promise anything specific. I help enforce the rules around here and I put in my two cents on how to make the place better. But I don't set the policy.

I will say that I don't really want to see any increase in general of the amount of moderation around here. I would like to see a shift in responsibility to the users to just ignore (or Ignore) people who they don't think are adding to the conversation. I think the place would be more pleasant and productive if folks did more of that.

The fact is that, on any given topic, there are probably going to be people you disagree with. There's nothing wrong with that, especially if everybody can try to be calm about it and discuss their differences in an enlightening and conversational way. If you encounter somebody who is being a jackass about it then simply ignore them and continue conversing with the people who you have an easier time communicating with. If they bother you enough then just put them on Ignore and forget about them.

At this point, one of two things seems likely. Either the jackass will realize that nobody wants to talk to them while they are being a jackass and will try to dial down the jackassery. Alternatively, they might decide that, if nobody will pay them any attention then they need to get louder and nastier. That'll probably get them banned. The wheels will turn and the boards will move forward.

Finally I'll say that if you'd like a less (which is to say almost "un") moderated forum about gaming then feel free to check out Circvs Maximvs if you haven't already. The language is less grandma friendly but actually the conversation is pretty good. Maybe because the jackasses have been shouted down or else because everybody treats them as just good for a laugh. Anyhow, it's a much smaller forum than ENW but I sometimes think that that's a good thing for conversation.

 

[Fifth Element]

That very much depends upon what is meant by "by definition". After all, if you refused to accept Candyland as D&D just because I owned both and slapped the D&D moniker on Candyland, it follows that your "definition" is, itself, subjective.

(Which is, btw, part of the nature of language. Any "precision" in language, upon investigation, is largely illusion.)

You're still stuck on poor examples, because you're redefining existing terms. I could call a DVD player a television (hey they're both electronics, like D&D and Candyland are both games), and defend it by saying "this is what *I* mean by television", but that doesn't change what everyone else means by television. And it doesn't change the fact that if I use the word television that way in conversation, no one will understand what I mean.

You need a better example to be at all convincing. No, your Candyland/D&D would not be D&D, because D&D already is something. If you took Candyland and attached an entirely new name to it, then that name would be what you're suggesting.

 

[Branduil]

Stop trying to censor me!

 

[Raven Crowking]

You're still stuck on poor examples, because you're redefining existing terms.

I realize that not everyone is interested in the philospohical implications of language, so I will be brief and then drop this (although I'll be happy to discuss it in a forked thread).

(1) Redefinition of existing terms is part of the ongoing process of language development. In Shakespeare's time, "prevent" meant "to go ahead of", for example. Within our own lifetimes, "owned" has grown a very different definition from "possessed".

(2) Definitions of terms themselves are not, and cannot be, objective. There are places where a Dr. Pepper, for example, is called a Coke. One can question exactly where the sun ends...is solar radiation part of the sun? Depends upon how you define the term. There are philosophical questions that examine this far more deeply, but suffice it to say that "objective definition" is an illusion, even within a given cultural group.

I could call a DVD player a television (hey they're both electronics, like D&D and Candyland are both games), and defend it by saying "this is what *I* mean by television", but that doesn't change what everyone else means by television. And it doesn't change the fact that if I use the word television that way in conversation, no one will understand what I mean.

I used to own a DVD player that was a television.

You need a better example to be at all convincing. No, your Candyland/D&D would not be D&D, because D&D already is something.

Likewise, some folks would say that 3e or 4e is not D&D, because D&D already is something. When WotC calls 3e or 4e "D&D", they are redefining the term, and some folks think that redefinition is objectionable. I am not one of them, but I have no difficulty understanding their position.

RC

 

[Arnwyn]

Can you think of a single catchphrase, like videogamey that has a positive context? I can't. The only reason to use these terms is to express negative feelings without having to justify your arguement. These terms are not neutral. Not at all. Every one of them is negative. But, they are also broad enough that they can mean just about anything to anyone.

That's the reason you never hear anyone being questioned about the positive reviews of 4e, or 3e either. The catchphrases are never used in that context. You never say, Oh, 3e is videogamey and expect everyone to think that's a positive thing.

Can you think of a single positive catchphrase?

Yeah, I can. "Elegant". WTF does that mean when applied to RPG rules?

(Of course, I think someone saying "simplicity of monsters" and stopping at that is also inappropriately vague. I certainly don't know what that means. What's simple? Why does that person - not necessarily anyone else - think there's simplicity there?)

 

[Steely Dan]

"Elegant". WTF does that mean when applied to RPG rules?

Non-cumbersome/clunky.