Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 2112314" data-attributes="member: 7240">The Forge's theory is essentially this: the rules should allow people to act directly on "story," thereby decentring the role of the GM by making everyone co-storytellers, which is weird when you read the control freak style discourse that characterizes the site. Any discussion that examines a term on the Forge usually starts with a 2000 word definition written in an academic style by the thread starter or by the academic he wishes to fellate at the time. The Forge could not handle a discussion of "crunch" and "fluff" without one of its leading lights posting a lengthy essay in abstruse poststructuralist academic jargon laying out the parameters of the debate.However, it seems to me that those who support the current terminology on this thread are at the other extreme -- you're hiding behind the inherent subjectivity of language in order to dismiss any objection to the terms. Yes, language is subjective but some language is more malleable and subjectively defined than other language. So, I will reiterate my challenge. I have given a number of examples in which "fluff" is used in a pejorative or dismissive way in the real world outside of gaming. Nobody has countered with an example of how crunch is used in this way; they have simply asserted that it is because language is inherently subjective.</blockquote>