Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 7762286" data-attributes="member: 177">Yes, but the article doesn't seem to get that.Genre definition is generally inclusive - if you have enough of the tropes or characteristics, you belong, whether or not you also have other characteristics, or some common ones are missing.&nbsp; And a given example might easily be part of multiple genres, and that's fine.&nbsp; Many folks are not terribly comfortable with genre definitions, because they aren't clear cut, black and white things.&nbsp; They are fuzzy around the edges, and there's usually a lot of edge.&nbsp; Inclusive definitions often don't allow one to definitively *prove* correctness of a proposition.The article, however, seems to be aiming at a more exclusive approach - if you have these specific things, you are an RPG, if you don't have them, you're not.&nbsp; And, it seem slike a lot of folks disagree both with the exclusivity, and with the choice of characteristics.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 7762286, member: 177"] Yes, but the article doesn't seem to get that. Genre definition is generally inclusive - if you have enough of the tropes or characteristics, you belong, whether or not you also have other characteristics, or some common ones are missing. And a given example might easily be part of multiple genres, and that's fine. Many folks are not terribly comfortable with genre definitions, because they aren't clear cut, black and white things. They are fuzzy around the edges, and there's usually a lot of edge. Inclusive definitions often don't allow one to definitively *prove* correctness of a proposition. The article, however, seems to be aiming at a more exclusive approach - if you have these specific things, you are an RPG, if you don't have them, you're not. And, it seem slike a lot of folks disagree both with the exclusivity, and with the choice of characteristics. [/QUOTE]

Verification