I've been in your corner through most of this...but I'm gonna have to disagree with flinging academic papers around.
What you seem to be missing...and no, I didn't read the article, but I have been reading the posts...or perhaps it's not so much "missing", but applying things where they needn't be/don't belong...is that a baseline, whether you call it "default/opt out" or "example/opt in" [which are both purely created from thin air semantic distinctions], is necessary.
Disagree. It matters for organ donation? Fine. It's part of human psychology? Fine. That does not translate to "it is [somehow] applicable to RPG game design."
I find this whole position really unusual coming form the Kamikaze Midget who wants the Monster Manual all collected mini-adventures/ecologies/groupings of monsters. What if I look at that, which you would no doubt presume to be the "opt in" option...and all I see is "I don't want all of these things together! Opt me out!"
You are assuming an objective "in/out [...aw crap gonna have to use the word...] default" where one does not exist.
How does that follow? The sentence should be "It follows that if this distinction matters in organ donation, it matter in organ donation. Humans think along these lines sometimes" [cuz let's face it, none of psychology is black/white 100% objectively "true"] That's all it does. The rest, yeah [I'm sorry!], is winging about semantics...and applying human psychology that matters in one area to another area where it is not as [if at all] relevant.
As per usual. You generally assume that everyone is as widely read [and./or interested in being same] on lots of things [as you are obviously very well read and have come to greatly respect your various theories...but attribute nothing more to them than that. Well-written, -worded and thought out theories and preferences] and assuming that everyone holds that knowledge up to the same importance in D&D as you.
Try discussing what other people are and maybe you would not meet with as many disagreements on such a wide variety D&D-related topics. Try talking about D&D.
I'm all for looking at psychology, understanding motivations and the like...all good fun stuff. But because there's something in an academic paper [about anything! Psychology, marketing, philosophy, branding, business, merchandising, literature, etc...etc...ad infinitum] does not mean or immediately translate to "D&D must/should be doing this!"
People are going to buy the book/system or they won't. Does this apply to the psychology of if they will buy the product? Cuz that's, whole hog, the only thing that matters from a production and sales standpoint. What they do or agree to/"opt in/out" or think after the product is bought matters not at all...other than "will they continue to buy more?"
Semantics. What makes the elf you can "opt into" the elf that needs to be there? Who's to say that's not the elf that will cause others to "opt out"? Your premise insists that your subjective preferences [and that's all they are, psychology academic papers or no] are the "opt in" option?
Mayhaps WotC doesn't want people making their own RPG experiences? They need their product to be recognizable and copyright/trademarkable...so they can sic the Hasbro lawyers on those that infringe! Outside of certain reasonable parameters, of course. Obviously, they know you can make elves how you want. They know I can make orcs how I want. They know any of us can change all of their carefully crafted cosmology from table to table...But we're all buying and using [the bulk of] the actual D&D game system and a good chunk of their material [the stuff we have no problems with] without changes. Maybe they don't see...or want!...D&D to be as "local" a thing as you insist. Maybe? I certainly don't have any inside track or know...but I wouldn't be surprised.
Nah, just that the game is designed with the idea that you won't necessarily be using elves and dwarves, and even if you do, you won't necessarily be using them as presented in the PH. A good example needs robust story and mechanics, but it also needs to be easy to ignore. That is, it needs to be not tightly tangled with other elements. Modular. Give me a good elf. Don't give me, say, 20 feats that hinge on a particular ability that this elf has and changes it. Don't give me 12 adventures all featuring the exact same kind of elf. Don't give me monster abilities that depend on this particular kind of elf to balance (AD&D ghoul paralysis, I'm looking at you!). Don't make it part of your assumed baseline.
What you seem to be missing...and no, I didn't read the article, but I have been reading the posts...or perhaps it's not so much "missing", but applying things where they needn't be/don't belong...is that a baseline, whether you call it "default/opt out" or "example/opt in" [which are both purely created from thin air semantic distinctions], is necessary.
I presented the paper to show that this distinction matters.
Disagree. It matters for organ donation? Fine. It's part of human psychology? Fine. That does not translate to "it is [somehow] applicable to RPG game design."
I find this whole position really unusual coming form the Kamikaze Midget who wants the Monster Manual all collected mini-adventures/ecologies/groupings of monsters. What if I look at that, which you would no doubt presume to be the "opt in" option...and all I see is "I don't want all of these things together! Opt me out!"
You are assuming an objective "in/out [...aw crap gonna have to use the word...] default" where one does not exist.
It follows that if this distinction matters, this isn't just me winging over semantics, and we can have the conversation about how it matters in this particular context.
How does that follow? The sentence should be "It follows that if this distinction matters in organ donation, it matter in organ donation. Humans think along these lines sometimes" [cuz let's face it, none of psychology is black/white 100% objectively "true"] That's all it does. The rest, yeah [I'm sorry!], is winging about semantics...and applying human psychology that matters in one area to another area where it is not as [if at all] relevant.
No, it's what I've been discussing the entire time. I seem to have been guilty of assuming that everyone is as widely read on psychology as I am.
As per usual. You generally assume that everyone is as widely read [and./or interested in being same] on lots of things [as you are obviously very well read and have come to greatly respect your various theories...but attribute nothing more to them than that. Well-written, -worded and thought out theories and preferences] and assuming that everyone holds that knowledge up to the same importance in D&D as you.
Try discussing what other people are and maybe you would not meet with as many disagreements on such a wide variety D&D-related topics. Try talking about D&D.
I'm all for looking at psychology, understanding motivations and the like...all good fun stuff. But because there's something in an academic paper [about anything! Psychology, marketing, philosophy, branding, business, merchandising, literature, etc...etc...ad infinitum] does not mean or immediately translate to "D&D must/should be doing this!"
Right. And this difference has caused different results in the rate of organ donation. Because this distinction isn't just semantics, it has a real effect on what people do.
People are going to buy the book/system or they won't. Does this apply to the psychology of if they will buy the product? Cuz that's, whole hog, the only thing that matters from a production and sales standpoint. What they do or agree to/"opt in/out" or think after the product is bought matters not at all...other than "will they continue to buy more?"
Give me an example elf that I can opt into. Don't give me a default elf I need to opt out of.
Semantics. What makes the elf you can "opt into" the elf that needs to be there? Who's to say that's not the elf that will cause others to "opt out"? Your premise insists that your subjective preferences [and that's all they are, psychology academic papers or no] are the "opt in" option?
One matches how each table makes its own local RPG experience and encourages a diversity of experiences, the other does not.
Mayhaps WotC doesn't want people making their own RPG experiences? They need their product to be recognizable and copyright/trademarkable...so they can sic the Hasbro lawyers on those that infringe! Outside of certain reasonable parameters, of course. Obviously, they know you can make elves how you want. They know I can make orcs how I want. They know any of us can change all of their carefully crafted cosmology from table to table...But we're all buying and using [the bulk of] the actual D&D game system and a good chunk of their material [the stuff we have no problems with] without changes. Maybe they don't see...or want!...D&D to be as "local" a thing as you insist. Maybe? I certainly don't have any inside track or know...but I wouldn't be surprised.