Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8179268" data-attributes="member: 16814">[USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER] isn't at all engaged in cooperative definition building, though -- he's called critics ignorant.&nbsp; The side discussion about semantics is also strange -- I watched his lecture on &quot;theme&quot; and it suffers from the same narrow point of view most of lew's arguments live in, and is as much about justifying his existing conclusion rather than exploring new space.&nbsp; His arguments about theme spend more time denigrating how videogames mechanics aren't good models as discussing his odd definitions of theme.The charges of gatekeeping are a tad overblown, yes, but they're also rooted in some truth -- definitions like these are used to disqualify games from discussion of RPGs -- usually alongside charges of &quot;storygame.&quot;&nbsp; That [USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER] definition absolutely doesn't apply to RPGs that also often receive the moniker of &quot;storygame&quot; isn't at all lost to those of us that have dealt with such arguments.&nbsp; I haven't seen [USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER] actually engage in gatekeeping, but his analyses often go in directions that ignore or even denigrate other approaches to RPGs.&nbsp; It's not a far reach, although not one I'm fond of.&nbsp; If the criticism of RPGs is such that it ignores entire games as outside of or unsuited to analysis as an RPG, then that's defacto gatekeeping, even if unintentional.And, as for passive-aggressive wankery, perhaps you shouldn't level these accusations against unnamed others -- it comes across as passive-aggressive wankery.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8179268, member: 16814"] [USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER] isn't at all engaged in cooperative definition building, though -- he's called critics ignorant. The side discussion about semantics is also strange -- I watched his lecture on "theme" and it suffers from the same narrow point of view most of lew's arguments live in, and is as much about justifying his existing conclusion rather than exploring new space. His arguments about theme spend more time denigrating how videogames mechanics aren't good models as discussing his odd definitions of theme. The charges of gatekeeping are a tad overblown, yes, but they're also rooted in some truth -- definitions like these are used to disqualify games from discussion of RPGs -- usually alongside charges of "storygame." That [USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER] definition absolutely doesn't apply to RPGs that also often receive the moniker of "storygame" isn't at all lost to those of us that have dealt with such arguments. I haven't seen [USER=30518]@lewpuls[/USER] actually engage in gatekeeping, but his analyses often go in directions that ignore or even denigrate other approaches to RPGs. It's not a far reach, although not one I'm fond of. If the criticism of RPGs is such that it ignores entire games as outside of or unsuited to analysis as an RPG, then that's defacto gatekeeping, even if unintentional. And, as for passive-aggressive wankery, perhaps you shouldn't level these accusations against unnamed others -- it comes across as passive-aggressive wankery. [/QUOTE]

Verification