Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 8199727" data-attributes="member: 87792">This is not my experience. There is only hostility to someone trying to define something when they define something badly. And that is because defining something badly is an inherently hostile action that excludes people - and because bad definitions normally flow out of a mix of ignorance and tribalism.The problem is that the definitions you have given (in particular about the progression that excludes one-shot RPGs) are bad ones that include things that are pretty obviously RPGs. Therefore the proposed definitions are not fit for purpose. They could have been presented in ignorance (in which case the thing to do when counter-examples are presented is to go back to fix them) or they could have been presented with the explicit intention of excluding. But if you're not interested in fixing your definitions and not trying to convince anyone of anything why are you writing?For the record, my definition of RPGs is that tabletop roleplaying is a hobby that grew out of two different but related and overlapping desires:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Taking a wargame where you identify with a single character trying to do a task, and putting in place a referee so that you can go beyond the rules and do things your character would but the rules can't cover</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">Taking the basic game of &quot;Let's Pretend&quot; and fixing some of the common failure states by having conflict resolution mechanics so you can move on, and a GM to handle all the minor characters no one wants to play as.</li>
</ul>I would say that your definitions are, among other things, almost exclusively based on the former motivation (which, for that matter, is how D&amp;D was created).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 8199727, member: 87792"] This is not my experience. There is only hostility to someone trying to define something when they define something [I]badly[/I]. And that is because defining something [I]badly[/I] is an inherently hostile action that excludes people - and because bad definitions normally flow out of a mix of ignorance and tribalism. The problem is that the definitions you have given (in particular about the progression that excludes one-shot RPGs) are bad ones that include things that are pretty obviously RPGs. Therefore the proposed definitions are not fit for purpose. They could have been presented in ignorance (in which case the thing to do when counter-examples are presented is to go back to fix them) or they could have been presented with the explicit intention of excluding. But if you're not interested in fixing your definitions and not trying to convince anyone of anything [I]why are you writing?[/I] For the record, my definition of RPGs is that tabletop roleplaying is a hobby that grew out of two different but related and overlapping desires: [LIST] [*]Taking a wargame where you identify with a single character trying to do a task, and putting in place a referee so that you can go beyond the rules and do things your character would but the rules can't cover [*]Taking the basic game of "Let's Pretend" and fixing some of the common failure states by having conflict resolution mechanics so you can move on, and a GM to handle all the minor characters no one wants to play as. [/LIST] I would say that your definitions are, among other things, almost exclusively based on the former motivation (which, for that matter, is how D&D was created). [/QUOTE]

Verification