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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 4897839" data-attributes="member: 22882">The existence of niches like Gamism, Immersionism, etc. came about because some people - mostly designers or would-be designers, but ordinary players and GMs as well - got tired of arguing about how "the game" was supposed to play, and instead chose to create games that played the way they liked.  Or even the way OTHERS liked.Instead of deriding a "power gamer," defining what it was that player enjoyed and finding a way to deliver it.  Instead of excluding the author stance as "metagaming," exploring its potential to add to or supplant the traditional experience.If you like everything that can remotely be defined as an RPG - kudos and kupos to you!  You're fortunate enough to never have to be picky you can join any group and enjoy the games they play in the same way they do.Many players - I daresay MOST, in my experience - do NOT have this universal appreciation of a wide range of playstyles.  If they don't have a vocabulary to describe what they do or do not enjoy, they don't even have the ABILITY to seek out a game they might like better.  All they can do is lash out at what they DON'T enjoy, condemning it with slurs that are older than the internet: powergamer, munchkin, metagamer, fancy-pants "roleplayer," frustrated novelist, frustrated actor, monty-haul GM, tightwad GM, badwrongfun (used unironically).THOSE terms aren't remotely new.  They're older than many people posting on this board, and they have ALWAYS been exclusionary.  RPG theory terminology was intended to be the INclusionary, the exact OPPOSITE of what you're suggesting.The old way was to say: you're doing it wrong!The new way: you're doing it different; could I enjoy that?  Even if I can't, here's something you might like.</blockquote>

Verification