Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7769127" data-attributes="member: 5142">[MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] already provided an excellent overview of some of the core problems of these past three articles, particularly Part 2 and 3. I will add my own voice of displeasure regarding Lew's articles. I don't think they were written well. First, let's play a quick game here. If you were reading these articles expecting to learn something new about "New School" games and/or "Old School" games, after reading these articles would you be able identify what either of those terms mean, provide ample examples, and then articulate what you have learned back to someone who has not read the article based on the content of the article? Okay, that was not a fun game, but I hope y'all get the point. Overall, they suffer three resonating problems: conflicting tone, poor display of knowledge, and deficient argumentation. When you mix all of these together into an article that attempts to demonstrate the differences between "Old School vs. New School" TTRPGs while ultimately demonstrating little of any real substance, then you are going to leave a lot of people sour about the article (and author). Conflicting Tone: Lewpuls's article suffers the problem of a conflicting tone. There are several dimensions of conflict at play here. First, the tone is lost amidst the author's unclear purpose. What is the purpose of the article? Is it meant to be informative? Teach us the difference between OS and NS? Persuasive? Will it persuade us that Old School is better than New School? It's unclear, as the first article jumps directly into the discussion in medias res: Okay? There is a "last time" without any link. But herein is also what seems like a muddled thesis statement: "the difference between Old School and anything else is...in attitude..." So this is what we should expect the articles to demonstrate sufficiently well. Does it? Second, the author's tone is heavily in favor of Old School gaming. When coupled with the aforementioned unclear purpose, then the article feels all over the place, coming across more like an uninformed rant than something meant to either persuade or inform, because his poor writing results in him failing at both. Having a preference in itself is not a problem. What is a problem is treating another gaming preference with condescension, derision, and badwrongfun. This problem is then magnified by his next problem. Poor Display of Knowledge: Lewpuls may be knowledgable about his subject matter. I don't know. I do not that he does not demonstrate that knowledge in his articles. And this ignorance is perhaps best exemplified in the graph he uses to start his debate, particularly the quadrant intersecting "Very Dangerous" with "Entirely Storytelling" where it says, in full honesty, "I don't see how this is possible." <a href="http://bullypulpitgames.com/games/fiasco/" target="_blank">If only one such a game existed</a>, then maybe he would know. But this article would have you believe that none do. This issue does get into his deficient argumentation. He does not define his terms well. (Maybe he had in prior essays. I don't know. But I am clearly not alone in the confusion.) What is an Old School game? What is a New School game? What are examples of OS boardgames and NS boardgames? And how about video games? He cites Torchlight 2, but he fails to contextualize the game in its genre. It's an action RPG in a similar vein (and with a number of the same creators) as the Diablo franchise. The game's Skinner Box that is meant to engender prolonged gameplay revolves around these loot drops. This is a genre feature since at least Diablo 1 (1996). Is that a New School game? That said, the impression we are left with of "New School RPGs" is not very flattering, and that certainly is an understatement. Is he complaining about NSRPGs or "special snowflake" Millennials? It's so difficult to tell. He does seem to associate Fate with a NSRPG, but he does not provide much content or argumentative support in that regard. The extreme dearth of examples of either NSRPGs or OSRPGs deprives his argumentation of any real meat or support. If this essay were an assignment, nearly everyone of his assertions would have been besieged by red ink markings that read "citation?", "such as...?", "evidence?", "how? please show support for your work," etc. Without the author to supply any content or support for his argument, the reader is left to presume that "New School" reflects more contemporaneous trends, leaving us to supply our own assumptions about what games are included in the respective lists But there are plentiful counterexamples among these "NSRPGs" that would seemingly debunk the author's claims. And we see these in egregious assertions like this:How can anyone assert this with a straight face or with any intellectual honesty? This leaves the impression that Lewpuls is ignorant of the subject matter. Is he not familiar with these other games? Given his preference of OSRPGs over against NSRPGs and state desire to demonstrate a difference of at least attitude, one would then assume that he would be prepared to shell out some examples with well-reasoned argumentation. But no. Deficient Argumentation: We have covered some of these already. There are no citations or insufficient evidence. There are a series of conflicting tones.  But often the argumentation is just fallacious and downright horrendous by any reasonable standard: At first I found this outrageous, but then I muted my feelings - as we are encouraged to do for the sake of calm logic - so that I could recognize in myself how impressed that I was that the author combines both a false analogy with guilt by association. Dogs have four legs. Doesn't that remind you of my earlier discussion on the wickedness of cats who also have four legs? Your honor, I rest my case. We could continue, but other posters will likely point out those problems, much as  [MENTION=6785785]hawkeyefan[/MENTION] did previously. This is most definitely true. And thanks to the author, whose articles seem hellbent on presenting a negative, misinformed one-sided portrayal of New School RPGs and keep the audience ignorant about meaningful differences, you too can dislike what the author intends for you to dislike!</blockquote>

Verification