Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 9214968" data-attributes="member: 6801252">So to be clear, I did understand your connotation, I am asserting that the G elements themselves were likely fun for people with different tastes than you, in the same way that Fighting Video Games get a lot of heat for being clunky or unfun but have a devoted following that enjoys them, and converts who used to feel that way but don't anymore (like me!) It's telling that games you would identify as having more or less identical gameplay loops nevertheless engender vicious edition wars and other schisms over the outsized impact of their small differences-- if the G portion of the difference between say, Pathfinder 2e, DND 5e, and Old School Essentials (three games with extremely similar loops) didn't matter, it mattering wouldn't have such a large impact on the scene.Your distaste for that in the abstract, is more disqualifying than it is informative, novelty isn't itself, much of anything.As for Anarchism, that itself is a fraught field because not only are there connotations and whatever you believe it really means, but also other people's identification of the core of that movement (Against Me's hit song "I Was a Teenage Anarchist" comes to mind as a pithy expression of what I mean.) The desire to use it anyway and dismiss the baggage it comes with as orthogonal to it's core meaning doesn't really withstand scrutiny because your authority over the term isn't capable of imposing itself on the generalized meaning of how the term has been experienced. This also gets into the nature of simplification, because control of language determines control of the concepts that can be discussed, if we cut away the seemingly problematic baggage of the term, we might be eliding the problematic portions of the concept itself from discussion, rather than some kind of red herring. It's a No-True-Sctosman, problem, in other words. Analysis in the colloquial sense has the trouble of being whatever you'd like it to be, in this case it appears to be a mechanism by which subjective assertions of tastemaking are laundered into something more authoratitive, which I'm not looking to be permissive towards, as an intellectual stance. People will like things that you don't, and that's fine, the discussion isn't really about rejecting the form, the form is self-validating on the basis that there exist people who enjoy it or who find meaning in it or whatever means it derives value for some group, it's about understanding the form and how it operates, and what is appealing about it for those people. There is a lot of analysis going on in this thread, it's tastemaking masquerading as analysis that we might have a problem with, at least to my mind.</blockquote>

Verification