Calling a mild disagreement a controversy is overstating things pretty dramatically.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Vincent Baker on mechanics, system and fiction in RPGs
- Thread starter pemerton
- Start date
Calling a mild disagreement a controversy is overstating things pretty dramatically.
Manbearcat
Legend
I see. So now we're going to work the infinite regress angle to haggle over the usage of "controversial/controversy."
You know what is happening here. The point is simple.
Its not just the infinite regress of I DISAGREE WITH YOUR WORD USAGE and NOW THIS WORD USAGE IS GOING TO BE THE TOPIC OF CONVERSATION. Its that x 1000 and then apply it to every thread ever.
And, again, you know this. There is no way you don't.
* So now we aren't talking about the dynamics of the lead post.
* Now we aren't talking about the intuitiveness and applicability of currency or fiction.
* Now we're talking about the applicability "controversy/controversial" in some unfortunately necessary meta-commentary because of the prior regress that was started! Yay!
Keep going! We can get to the beginning of language by 2024! Maybe we can start haggling over pictures on cave walls and avoid ever actually discussing anything!
Mod Note:
Yes, but do you?
There is a common internet practice of restating an opposing viewpoint as somewhat more extreme than it actually is. It isn't always intentional, and seems harmless at first, perhaps a mild hyperbole here and there. But side A does it to B, then B does it to A, and it escalates. It is a common way we walk ourselves into strawman arguments in which everyone sits at the dipole ends of positions, abandoning all nuance.
Pointing out that there is no real controversy is a simple, and pretty honest, position to take. It is not a position that anyone should be taken to task for.
Maybe, in the future, you should not berate people for trying to keep a discussion grounded.
Thanks.
First, I'm a great believer in arguing from authority, given that I am an expert in several fields and know experts in several others.Argument from authority - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Second, in the post you replied to I didn't point to any authorities. I pointed out that certain RPGs have actually been designed by applying the methods that Vincent Baker sets out, which is sufficient to show that the methods have been actioned. And the methods having been actioned is sufficient to show that they are actionable.
As I said, QED.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
So it would be fair to say that the body of evidence supports the notion that VB's design methods yield a particular kind of RPG?
What kind do you have in mind?
I mean, Torchbearer is pretty different from Apocalypse World. But given the amount of interaction between (i) Luke and Thor and (ii) Vincent, I'm pretty confident that the development of Torchbearer was influenced by Baker. And he's an expressly acknowledged influence on Burning Wheel.
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
I'd rather you put it in your own words - because I think whatever words I use are most likely just going to be shot down.
Do you think there's any commonalities between that list of games?
Last edited:
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
Well... this sentiment explain alot!
Well thats an obligation to reference Dunning Krueger if I ever saw one.
No, you proved that the people who said these things have designed games. You haven't proven that what they said can actually be used to do so.
Thats why its an argument from authority, as you're counting on pointing at Baker making his games to stand in for you proving your contentions.
