Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 5810647" data-attributes="member: 2205">Don't flatter yourself, Mark.&nbsp; I don't follow your posts particularly closely to know what you think about this issue, and I didn't read the thread that this was forked from.&nbsp; And I only skimmed the first post anyway, because my point wasn't to engage in his attempt to define roleplaying specifically, but rather to say that I don't think it's necessary to do so.&nbsp; I'm speaking generically about a charge that I've seen levelled at folks in the &quot;Playstyle Wars&quot; over and over again from many people, and I rarely pay attention to who's said what exactly.&nbsp; My only point is that defining roleplaying isn't, IMO, necessary.&nbsp; We all know what is meant by the term.&nbsp; Sometimes we just pretend not to get it.&nbsp; And not to pile on--at least not intentionally, although it's certainly going to look like that's what I'm doing; again, I'm speaking about the predictable and very often repeated course these types of conversations tend to follow, not this one in particular--but the follow-up to &quot;that's not a roleplaying game&quot; of &quot;it's great to play other types of games.&nbsp; Just don't call them roleplaying games&quot; isn't affirmative, even though it pretends to be.&nbsp; It's a very, very thinly veiled accusation of &quot;you're doing it wrong&quot;.&nbsp; Trying to put roleplaying into an increasingly narrow definitional box and exclude other activities by making up labels for them (like my pet peeve fake label &quot;storygames&quot;) isn't about clarity through definitional preciseness.&nbsp; It's usually about passive aggressive playstyle warring.&nbsp; And even when it's not, it's going to come across that way anyway, because nobody is going to want to be told that they're excluded from the hobby and that the very label of teh hobby itself doesn't apply to them because &quot;they're doing it wrong.&quot;&nbsp; Go get your own label; you're in a completely different hobby.&nbsp; Etc.&nbsp; Even if that kind of thing is well-intentioned, it's at best a foolish endeavor.&nbsp; At worst it's--well, it's not actually well-intentioned at all, at worst.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 5810647, member: 2205"] Don't flatter yourself, Mark. I don't follow your posts particularly closely to know what you think about this issue, and I didn't read the thread that this was forked from. And I only skimmed the first post anyway, because my point wasn't to engage in his attempt to define roleplaying specifically, but rather to say that I don't think it's necessary to do so. I'm speaking generically about a charge that I've seen levelled at folks in the "Playstyle Wars" over and over again from many people, and I rarely pay attention to who's said what exactly. My only point is that defining roleplaying isn't, IMO, necessary. We all know what is meant by the term. Sometimes we just pretend not to get it. And not to pile on--at least not intentionally, although it's certainly going to look like that's what I'm doing; again, I'm speaking about the predictable and very often repeated course these types of conversations tend to follow, not this one in particular--but the follow-up to "that's not a roleplaying game" of "it's great to play other types of games. Just don't call them roleplaying games" isn't affirmative, even though it pretends to be. It's a very, [I]very[/I] thinly veiled accusation of "you're doing it wrong". Trying to put roleplaying into an increasingly narrow definitional box and exclude other activities by making up labels for them (like my pet peeve fake label "storygames") isn't about clarity through definitional preciseness. It's usually about passive aggressive playstyle warring. And even when it's not, it's going to come across that way anyway, because nobody is going to want to be told that they're excluded from the hobby and that the very label of teh hobby itself doesn't apply to them because "they're doing it wrong." Go get your own label; you're in a completely different hobby. Etc. Even if that kind of thing is well-intentioned, it's at best a foolish endeavor. At worst it's--well, it's not actually well-intentioned at all, at worst. [/QUOTE]

Verification