Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoutonRustique" data-source="post: 6350989" data-attributes="member: 22362">We have different understandings of the weight to give to different words. When you say that people do not understand the vote they took, you are, in effect, saying : they are wrong about what they do. It is not a terrible thing, and I did not mean to challenge; I simply called out what I perceived hoping it could serve.When I call out contradiction and continue w/o addressing it is because it was simply a call out. The reason for which is stated latter on.That's what I'm trying to call out : it may not be confusion on their part.Of course, if the definitions of WYA and WYCD which are yours are shared by them, you are correct.I say preferred language in the context of the post : since I offered that other words which you claim are WYCD have WYA value, the alignment words are the words which you prefer be used to describe WYA over the words which you say are WYCD. In this context preferred refers only to this discussion and not to "the words you yourself actually prefer to be used for this out of all words that exist".There were a few sets of words mentioned : "mechanical" and alignement among them. Of the two sets, you seemed to feel that alignment words were better descriptors of WYA. That was my meaning behind "preferred".I was not contradicting you, I was adding precisions I thought were pertinent.[1]Ah ha! It seems we have found common words! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> But then again... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> When you speak of primacy as a marker that is exactly my point (the whole of it in fact - the entire post was this and one other).I am proposing that the balance of primacy is different for many people. As such, when some people use words which some find firmly in the WYCD camp, they are using them as WYA (and the other way around!)The whole of my point was that people may use a different approach to WYA which others can perceive as WYCD. The use of the words themselves are not a definitive tell; one needs to engage with the user to know what aspect of the word is being used.A classic example would be : "I want to play a knight!" There are MANY possible layers of meaning here : do they want to play a character with the knight class? If they refer to the "archetype", to which parts of it are they referring to? Are they of those who have most of their knowledge come from a certain line of novels and see themselves as an extension of a pre-existing character?The "strength" of WYA over WYCD (and vice-versa) of a term is a very hard thing to define without a great deal of shared knowledge.[2]I was offering the possibility that it was never about WYA and that its simultaneous decline of use with its mechanical applications might lend credence to this possibility. With regards to contradicting you directly, that was not my goal. My purpose was to, in effect, move the goal posts. While this is often an invalid way to win arguments, my goal is the shifting of the goal posts - so in this case, shifting the goal posts isn't shifting the goal posts. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />The language of the text books does give WYA weight to alignment choice, but many other things in the books make it a mechanical restriction or requirement - in many ways it is an excellent example of WYA as WYCD and vice-versa. As such, when a sheet read "good", that was indication of WYA over WYCD or the other way around without asking the player the initial reason for the choice. A very plausible reason could be both : I want to play a knight charged with holy (in the sense of good) power for his deep belief in the goodness of the human heart. Perhaps you see a first here, but I see simultaneity. There are mounds of both WYA and WYCD here.That may entirely be my fault... I'll "deconstruct" my phrase here - my hope is that you may tell where I made my error(s), not "yelling it slowly at an imbecile" (I'm specifying because w/o the non-verbal cues, the two are remarkably similar...)Possibly, but I very much doubt it. Such games as you mention (or versions of them) are ancient beyond belief[1]; had they the kind of draw to the kind of people who like what we call RPGs[2], I am fairly convinced it would be as you ponder[3].[1] The free form, improved-based games which you referred to (who's line, etc) have been around for a good long while.[2] If these kinds of games were as enjoyable to the many different kind of people who play RPGs as a whole and had an equal or greater appeal as the RPGs that have been popular.[3] If the two previous statements were true, I believe the RPG market would be along the lines you presented. Since it is not, I believe at least one of the two above statements are false.I know, but I am flipping it on you also - your understanding may be flawed. In truth, the question I wish to raise (for that is my wish, not to contradict and "prove you wrong") is: are you certain you have the shared understanding of WYA and WYCD? Even if so, is there another valid interpretation?[1]On this point, I could not disagree more (I believe they are strongly related). But such is the price of not having a shared mind.An example for my side of the fence on this (if you see this being possible, feel free to share how) : An easily-slighted, outgoing, friendly person if you have abysmal social skills. I feel the world would have beat you into something different.Precisions : here easily-slighted, outgoing, friendly fall into WYA while abysmal social skills is WYCD.Also, I will readily admit that much "non-effective"* aspects of WYA can be built w/o WYCD at all.*What I mean here relates back to my position that something that has no bearing does not, effectively, exist. If pages and pages of descriptive WYA has no bearing on the actions you take, it is not WYA - but that is more philosophy than anything else. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/blush.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":blush:" title="Blush    :blush:" data-shortname=":blush:" />In the end, I am arguing about the fluidity of the scale that goes from WYA and WYCD - and the relative and unknown value of concepts that we assume are shared.Note: If I appear to repeat myself, it is because I did. I understand that we are having a hard time finding common understanding in the words we use; as such, I've repeated myself using different phrasings in the hopes of making my meaning less ambiguous - it is not meant as a slight. It is actually a tell of my weakness at expression : were I better, it would not be required.Also, not all your points are responded to. This is not meant as a slight, simply a consequence of time and efficiency I do not have. I have responded to what allowed me to re-affirm what I hope to be my main points, your other points and ideas are not deemed invalid for their silence.</blockquote>

Verification