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
*TTRPGs General
World of Design: The Lost Art of Making Things Up
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="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8125983" data-attributes="member: 6790260"><p>[USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER]</p><p>"Any change is going to have some good and some bad" is a very squishy argument. Like, by that argument, using vaccines is going to have "some good and some bad" because all those kids <em>not</em> getting sick now means drug manufacturers won't be selling as much cough medicine to families, so maybe we should sit back and re-evaluate whether vaccines are a good idea or not. New media change how we view and prioritize things. That's not "some good mixed with some bad," that's just the way <em>anything</em> is, ANYTHING changing will do that. If you want to actually have a conversation, we need to talk about more than just this nebulous "some bad." WHAT bad?</p><p></p><p>The "real grounding" of Socrates' argument is <em>fear of change</em>, is taking that nebulous "but BAAAAD things might happen!" and using it as an excuse. You claim to not be a luddite, but nebulous "change can be bad!" comments are <em>exactly</em> the kind of argument that luddism trades in. Be specific. And that's the problem with the OP: it gets specific...and, simply, wrong. "A period of upheaval" is literally just another way of saying "a time of change." As Babylon 5's G'kar put it: "G'quan wrote, '...The future is all around us, waiting in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation.' " We pass through moments of transition when there are no great changes, when we iterate on what we have. We pass through moments of revelation when something new and different comes; and revelation is always a challenging thing. But it is trivial to <em>say</em> that revelation is a challenging thing, as a result--we already know this, we have all lived through our own personal moments of revelation. What is not trivial, and is indeed worth discussing, is <em>which</em> problems do or may arise, and how we may face them.</p><p></p><p>On point 3: Yes, we chose not to memorize large volumes because it was not needed. And, as you say, we now often do not take the time to memorize phone numbers. That does not mean we lack the capacity, it simply means we are not choosing to use it that way. But that's why I referenced things like Shakespearean actors or nerdy Monty Python fans; these are people demonstrating that humanity still totally has that capacity. We have not lost the <em>ability</em> to remember large amounts of information. We have re-directed our memory to things that are more useful to us, now that large quantities of verbal information can be referenced quickly, rather than needing personal encyclopedic knowledge. We can work more with abstractions than with the grit of direct memorization--which is, if anything, <em>useful</em> to our modern, specialized academia.</p><p></p><p>As for the social media tie in...fair enough, I guess, it just seems to come in out of the blue when it wasn't discussed in the article itself, but becomes basically the <em>only</em> thing you personally talked about. The jump from static media (which is non-participatory and "pre-imagined" as the OP might put it) to social media (which is participatory and, therefore, open to whatever humanity might wish to do with it) was really jarring. I think your concerns about social media in particular are somewhat overblown. Social media has revealed that humanity is what it has always been: a spectrum, a distribution. Our brains are not wired well for processing "billions of other humans," so seeing the terrible dregs and amazing heights of our entire species leads to instinctive responses that do not accurately reflect the facts (e.g. "oh god, if <random Internet Person> is this bad, my life is HORRIBLE" when they're one-in-a-million and you've only ever personally met 5,000 living humans). Which, by the way? <em>This</em> is an example of a non-nebulous concern: how to cultivate positive social media communities while preserving the spontaneity and creativity that makes "humans interacting with each other" worthwhile.</p><p></p><p>If curtailment isn't what you meant, why did you use words like "homogenization" ( = uniformity of thought, the antithesis of creativity) or speak of a "conformist culture...especially in the arts"? Conformism and homogenization are absolutely the deadening of creativity. If you think criticism and social pressure are suddenly a big deal, I strongly suggest that you look into the history of art critique. The Dadaist movement, for example, came into being in part because there was a <em>stranglehold</em> by certain groups over what things were <em>allowed</em> to be considered worthy of display in museums and the like. The criticism was just much, much harder to see because it was hidden--never allowing the works to come into the light at all. Social media has simply made it more <em>public</em>--which means we actually get to SEE the criticism happening, and can thus DO something about it.</p><p></p><p>I have no idea what you mean by "the rhetoric of twitter, the rhetoric of facebook, and even the rhetoric of forums like this." There is no "rhetoric." There's just people, like you and me, talking to each other. "The rhetoric of X" implies some kind of <em>organized</em> or <em>structured</em> approach, some kind of formalism or common standard. There is no such thing; we are getting the unfiltered words and opinions of people. (Well, mostly unfiltered. Some forums have language filters.) What do you mean by "stifling your creativity"? You aren't required to use social media when you do creative work. You can still do exactly as you did before. Choosing to use social media does, implicitly, mean welcoming critical voices, some of which will be jerks because <em>some humans are jerks</em>, something that has been true for as long as there have been things you could call "humans." I fail to see how the fact that people can speak publicly, about publicly-displayed work, has <em>any</em> impact on what artistic works you are capable of generating. It certainly can have an effect on your <em>reputation</em> or how others <em>perceive</em> you, but that has always been the case with all art ever, it's (again) just more <em>obvious</em> that that happens now.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 8125983, member: 6790260"] [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] "Any change is going to have some good and some bad" is a very squishy argument. Like, by that argument, using vaccines is going to have "some good and some bad" because all those kids [I]not[/I] getting sick now means drug manufacturers won't be selling as much cough medicine to families, so maybe we should sit back and re-evaluate whether vaccines are a good idea or not. New media change how we view and prioritize things. That's not "some good mixed with some bad," that's just the way [I]anything[/I] is, ANYTHING changing will do that. If you want to actually have a conversation, we need to talk about more than just this nebulous "some bad." WHAT bad? The "real grounding" of Socrates' argument is [I]fear of change[/I], is taking that nebulous "but BAAAAD things might happen!" and using it as an excuse. You claim to not be a luddite, but nebulous "change can be bad!" comments are [I]exactly[/I] the kind of argument that luddism trades in. Be specific. And that's the problem with the OP: it gets specific...and, simply, wrong. "A period of upheaval" is literally just another way of saying "a time of change." As Babylon 5's G'kar put it: "G'quan wrote, '...The future is all around us, waiting in moments of transition, to be born in moments of revelation.' " We pass through moments of transition when there are no great changes, when we iterate on what we have. We pass through moments of revelation when something new and different comes; and revelation is always a challenging thing. But it is trivial to [I]say[/I] that revelation is a challenging thing, as a result--we already know this, we have all lived through our own personal moments of revelation. What is not trivial, and is indeed worth discussing, is [I]which[/I] problems do or may arise, and how we may face them. On point 3: Yes, we chose not to memorize large volumes because it was not needed. And, as you say, we now often do not take the time to memorize phone numbers. That does not mean we lack the capacity, it simply means we are not choosing to use it that way. But that's why I referenced things like Shakespearean actors or nerdy Monty Python fans; these are people demonstrating that humanity still totally has that capacity. We have not lost the [I]ability[/I] to remember large amounts of information. We have re-directed our memory to things that are more useful to us, now that large quantities of verbal information can be referenced quickly, rather than needing personal encyclopedic knowledge. We can work more with abstractions than with the grit of direct memorization--which is, if anything, [I]useful[/I] to our modern, specialized academia. As for the social media tie in...fair enough, I guess, it just seems to come in out of the blue when it wasn't discussed in the article itself, but becomes basically the [I]only[/I] thing you personally talked about. The jump from static media (which is non-participatory and "pre-imagined" as the OP might put it) to social media (which is participatory and, therefore, open to whatever humanity might wish to do with it) was really jarring. I think your concerns about social media in particular are somewhat overblown. Social media has revealed that humanity is what it has always been: a spectrum, a distribution. Our brains are not wired well for processing "billions of other humans," so seeing the terrible dregs and amazing heights of our entire species leads to instinctive responses that do not accurately reflect the facts (e.g. "oh god, if <random Internet Person> is this bad, my life is HORRIBLE" when they're one-in-a-million and you've only ever personally met 5,000 living humans). Which, by the way? [I]This[/I] is an example of a non-nebulous concern: how to cultivate positive social media communities while preserving the spontaneity and creativity that makes "humans interacting with each other" worthwhile. If curtailment isn't what you meant, why did you use words like "homogenization" ( = uniformity of thought, the antithesis of creativity) or speak of a "conformist culture...especially in the arts"? Conformism and homogenization are absolutely the deadening of creativity. If you think criticism and social pressure are suddenly a big deal, I strongly suggest that you look into the history of art critique. The Dadaist movement, for example, came into being in part because there was a [I]stranglehold[/I] by certain groups over what things were [I]allowed[/I] to be considered worthy of display in museums and the like. The criticism was just much, much harder to see because it was hidden--never allowing the works to come into the light at all. Social media has simply made it more [I]public[/I]--which means we actually get to SEE the criticism happening, and can thus DO something about it. I have no idea what you mean by "the rhetoric of twitter, the rhetoric of facebook, and even the rhetoric of forums like this." There is no "rhetoric." There's just people, like you and me, talking to each other. "The rhetoric of X" implies some kind of [I]organized[/I] or [I]structured[/I] approach, some kind of formalism or common standard. There is no such thing; we are getting the unfiltered words and opinions of people. (Well, mostly unfiltered. Some forums have language filters.) What do you mean by "stifling your creativity"? You aren't required to use social media when you do creative work. You can still do exactly as you did before. Choosing to use social media does, implicitly, mean welcoming critical voices, some of which will be jerks because [I]some humans are jerks[/I], something that has been true for as long as there have been things you could call "humans." I fail to see how the fact that people can speak publicly, about publicly-displayed work, has [I]any[/I] impact on what artistic works you are capable of generating. It certainly can have an effect on your [I]reputation[/I] or how others [I]perceive[/I] you, but that has always been the case with all art ever, it's (again) just more [I]obvious[/I] that that happens now. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
World of Design: The Lost Art of Making Things Up
Top