Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters: Monster Mashups
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 6155295" data-attributes="member: 92511"><p>I've been in your corner through most of this...but I'm gonna have to disagree with flinging academic papers around.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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."</p><p></p><p>I find this whole position <em>really </em>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!"</p><p></p><p>You are assuming an objective "in/out [...aw crap gonna have to use the word...] default" where one does not exist. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>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!],<em> is</em> winging about semantics...and applying human psychology that matters in one area to another area where it is not as [if at all] relevant.</p><p></p><p> </p><p></p><p>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<em> in D&D</em> as you.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>People are going to buy the book/system or they won't. Does this apply to the psychology of <em>if</em> 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 <em>after </em>the product is bought matters not at all...other than "will they continue to buy more?"</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Semantics. What makes the elf <em>you</em> 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 <em>the</em> "opt in" option? </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Mayhaps WotC doesn't <em>want </em>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 6155295, member: 92511"] 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 [I]really [/I]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!],[I] is[/I] 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[I] in D&D[/I] 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 [I]if[/I] 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 [I]after [/I]the product is bought matters not at all...other than "will they continue to buy more?" Semantics. What makes the elf [I]you[/I] 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 [I]the[/I] "opt in" option? Mayhaps WotC doesn't [I]want [/I]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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Wandering Monsters: Monster Mashups
Top