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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="gizmo33" data-source="post: 3687523" data-attributes="member: 30001">Because as long as there have been creative, artistic fields, there has been people wanting to be the high priesthood of those fields.  People that want to dictate to other people what is good and what is bad about things that entertain them.  Star Wars is a bad movie, comic books are bad literature, and rock-and-roll is bad music, etc.  You know - that sort of thing.  Of course once the crushing weight of popular interest makes something like rock-and-roll a musical form that it's impossible to ignore, then the same personality types form a priesthood within that genre.  That same mental mistake seems capable of perpetuating itself for generation after generation, and I can't figure out why some folks haven't gotten that yet.If "quality" is so self-evident and logical then it ought to speak for itself and I don't need some art-heirophant to tell me about it.  Some people on this thread say that Tomb of Horrors is a bad module, and yet I think it wound up on Dungeon Magazine's top list of modules of all time.  If quality were an objective issue, then the only reason that the two groups would disagree would be if one of them were making a mistake.  IMO art-heirophants should just take science classes or logic classes to get their desire for rigour out of their system.  The nature of intelligence, beauty, clarity, elegence, etc - are just simply not understood in an objective way.  It seems very common on this board for folks to take their opinions and want to make them facts - I suppose it's a way of gaining validity.  The rules of English are pretty well formalized, so it's well-defined and useful to tell me that such-and-such a module uses poor grammar.  But an overall assessment (ex. "that module is poorly-designed") without the specifics is useless to me.</blockquote>

Verification