Difference between revisions of "User talk:Matts"
BenofZongo (Talk | contribs) |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
--[[User:BenofZongo|BenofZongo]] 17:50, 22 March 2007 (MST)Again, a point well taken...here comes the "but": I feel like some of it is just lexical gymnastics, and I feel like with our whole votin' fiasco, that sort of thing may promote discord, not communication. I agree that it's an interesting exercise to think about things in these terms, and to use them to try to get a new perspective on how/why certain people play/GM in certain ways, and perhaps to inform yourself as to new approaches you might take. But I feel like the final take-home lesson can just be boiled down to: "try to understand that everyone comes to the table with their own motivations, try to understand those motivations and respect them, and try to create an environment where the best middle ground between those motivations is generated." But that's just fundamental group dynamics, and to define 50 vocab words to get it across seems excessive. On the other hand, I do definitely agree that his vocabulary is very useful for discussing games/game systems/players/GMs in a sort of abstract way, which is most of what we do anyways. | --[[User:BenofZongo|BenofZongo]] 17:50, 22 March 2007 (MST)Again, a point well taken...here comes the "but": I feel like some of it is just lexical gymnastics, and I feel like with our whole votin' fiasco, that sort of thing may promote discord, not communication. I agree that it's an interesting exercise to think about things in these terms, and to use them to try to get a new perspective on how/why certain people play/GM in certain ways, and perhaps to inform yourself as to new approaches you might take. But I feel like the final take-home lesson can just be boiled down to: "try to understand that everyone comes to the table with their own motivations, try to understand those motivations and respect them, and try to create an environment where the best middle ground between those motivations is generated." But that's just fundamental group dynamics, and to define 50 vocab words to get it across seems excessive. On the other hand, I do definitely agree that his vocabulary is very useful for discussing games/game systems/players/GMs in a sort of abstract way, which is most of what we do anyways. | ||
| + | |||
| + | --[[User:Matts|Matts]] 17:56, 22 March 2007 (MST)So, for me what this does primarily is make me examine my own motivations. What do I really enjoy about roleplaying? What are my primary attitudes? It's important, the part he papers over: To classify someone as a "Gamist" or "Narrativist" strictly, well that misses the point. I think most of us enjoy a wide variety of gaming experiences (if anyone said they were rampantly opposed to "simulationism", they'd be lying, since that's a big part of all the roleplaying we've done and enjoyed). But with study, newer elements (my attempts to introduce a bit of narrativism, etc) become less unknown and hence less hostile. | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm certainly far from saying this guy is right; he's kind of an ass (a respectable ass, but still). His quest, though - the act of critical examination of roleplaying, and looking at the constituent elements of this pastime we choose to indulge in - I personally feel a duty to myself to examine them, the unexamined life being not worth living and all that. | ||
Revision as of 18:56, 22 March 2007
--BenofZongo 17:14, 22 March 2007 (MST)The article is interesting, but also kind of depressing: I feel like if you take him at his word the bottom line is that you need a huge range of variables to match up between your participants to have a workable group. I mean, G, N, S, in six to eight players: the likelihood that all 8 have the same one is essentially zero. Furthermore, I've been organizing this group for about 4 years now, and I can tell you it's run ok even though I think that we've got a decent spread (mostly G and S, maybe 1-1.5 Ns). At the end, he sort of veers off and admits that its all a social issue: you either communicate and work out your differences or you don't. But then, why spend all this time in a lexical exercise trying to find the fundamentals of things if it doesn't actually help explain/solve/design anything?
--Matts 17:42, 22 March 2007 (MST)his point is that with a well-developed vocabulary and understanding of what it is that people actually want, you can game with a better understanding of people's motives and so forth. Knowing those fundamentals, understanding on an atomic level your goals, that kind of thing I personally think facilitates communication.
--BenofZongo 17:50, 22 March 2007 (MST)Again, a point well taken...here comes the "but": I feel like some of it is just lexical gymnastics, and I feel like with our whole votin' fiasco, that sort of thing may promote discord, not communication. I agree that it's an interesting exercise to think about things in these terms, and to use them to try to get a new perspective on how/why certain people play/GM in certain ways, and perhaps to inform yourself as to new approaches you might take. But I feel like the final take-home lesson can just be boiled down to: "try to understand that everyone comes to the table with their own motivations, try to understand those motivations and respect them, and try to create an environment where the best middle ground between those motivations is generated." But that's just fundamental group dynamics, and to define 50 vocab words to get it across seems excessive. On the other hand, I do definitely agree that his vocabulary is very useful for discussing games/game systems/players/GMs in a sort of abstract way, which is most of what we do anyways.
--Matts 17:56, 22 March 2007 (MST)So, for me what this does primarily is make me examine my own motivations. What do I really enjoy about roleplaying? What are my primary attitudes? It's important, the part he papers over: To classify someone as a "Gamist" or "Narrativist" strictly, well that misses the point. I think most of us enjoy a wide variety of gaming experiences (if anyone said they were rampantly opposed to "simulationism", they'd be lying, since that's a big part of all the roleplaying we've done and enjoyed). But with study, newer elements (my attempts to introduce a bit of narrativism, etc) become less unknown and hence less hostile.
I'm certainly far from saying this guy is right; he's kind of an ass (a respectable ass, but still). His quest, though - the act of critical examination of roleplaying, and looking at the constituent elements of this pastime we choose to indulge in - I personally feel a duty to myself to examine them, the unexamined life being not worth living and all that.
