Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8242719" data-attributes="member: 85555"><p>Like I said, I don't see anything wrong with analysis. I think it is good. but an honest analysis has to be open to the possibility that it is wrong, has a flawed assumptions somewhere, etc (no matter how convincing it is: this is why I am always pushing back against some of the sandbox dogma on my own side). But the intellectual arrogance comes in when there is absolutism and certainty around that analysis. To be honest, I have found you very non-arrogant, very flexible in terms of your thinking. But that isn't the case with everyone, and the reason I quoted your post was because I think it reflected some of the assumptions that go into some of this analysis that does lead to the arrogance I was talking about. And lets be clear, arrogance exists on my side too. I don't think it is that present in this particular thread. Out in the world though, arrogance is pretty evenly distributed. If you wander into discussions where living world sandbox GMs have the upper hand, there is a lot of exclusionary and arrogant language I disagree with (which is why I am always arguing in favor a sandbox that is expanding and broader and includes other styles of play: including ones that use things like player facing mechanics). I also don't like a lot of the hard lines people draw and I don't like a lot of the belittling language used to describe more narrative approaches and more player facing approaches.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8242719, member: 85555"] Like I said, I don't see anything wrong with analysis. I think it is good. but an honest analysis has to be open to the possibility that it is wrong, has a flawed assumptions somewhere, etc (no matter how convincing it is: this is why I am always pushing back against some of the sandbox dogma on my own side). But the intellectual arrogance comes in when there is absolutism and certainty around that analysis. To be honest, I have found you very non-arrogant, very flexible in terms of your thinking. But that isn't the case with everyone, and the reason I quoted your post was because I think it reflected some of the assumptions that go into some of this analysis that does lead to the arrogance I was talking about. And lets be clear, arrogance exists on my side too. I don't think it is that present in this particular thread. Out in the world though, arrogance is pretty evenly distributed. If you wander into discussions where living world sandbox GMs have the upper hand, there is a lot of exclusionary and arrogant language I disagree with (which is why I am always arguing in favor a sandbox that is expanding and broader and includes other styles of play: including ones that use things like player facing mechanics). I also don't like a lot of the hard lines people draw and I don't like a lot of the belittling language used to describe more narrative approaches and more player facing approaches. [/QUOTE]

Verification