Yes, but you could have had MORE fun...

[Josh]

Let me sumarise our apparent positions here, because I don't think they are clear.

Josh: If you like free-form roleplaying, check out story games, because you will like them even more.

Orion:I will not check out story games because I intuitively know they will be inferior to freeform roleplaying.

Is this summary fair?

[Brainpiercing]

Most of the time I think Josh argues a little too harshly and people are right to be disgruntled with him. Not this time. Orion, if anyone failed to argue rationally it was you. You employed a great deal of ad-hoc reasoning and semantic arrow dodging. Instead of saying " In my experience people DON'T like structured storytelling, you skirted the issue.

Heh, IMHO the problem with Josh is that sometimes he just doesn't say what's in his head. Or at least, there's a lot more behind a given quote than it seems.

However, there is a point to saying things harshly: You do it to provoke some thought. And noone should ever be immune to that. I know we all get defensive if someone attacks our set ways, but sometimes we just SHOULDN'T. Because set ways are very rarely perfect.

AND I say this as a great friend of Freeform (although really only in written form). I've been playing freeform games for years. There is a lot to to like when your base mechanic is plausibility. The trouble is that freeforming some roleplaying in an otherwise NOT freeform game IS totally different. It just doesn't work out in the same way. Also, freeform does have a problem with conflict resolution, as soon as players and GMs aren't totally on the same page.
So yeah, I do like freeform. I also don't strictly prefer structured gaming, since there is a lot of structured gaming I DISLIKE, but in the case that I get some good rules, then I'll prefer structure. And at the table I prefer structure any day.

[Talen Lee]

Josh, like myself, acts as if he believes in economy of language to the point of not wasting a single word dishwasher.

[TheChrisWaits]

Josh, like myself, acts as if he believes in economy of language to the point of not wasting a single word dishwasher.

This post made my day.

[Josh]

Heh, IMHO the problem with Josh is that sometimes he just doesn't say what's in his head. Or at least, there's a lot more behind a given quote than it seems.

True.

But the other extreme is just as bad.

Thoughts and concepts are rarely linear.  And rarely summed up in a point or two.

So the problem becomes, "how much do you say to get them to start thinking in the direction you are looking?"

[Brainpiercing]

So the problem becomes, "how much do you say to get them to start thinking in the direction you are looking?"

I guess it's a trade off. If you only give a hint and people arrive at conclusions on their own that's better on the long run. But you have to give them something to go by. On the other hand if you push them in a certain direction too hard, or say too much, they might just lock up and get defensive.

Probably you've been on the side of "too little" a few times. You're also just a bit too self-assured for some. It happens when you generalise based on experience. I do it, too, and people don't take it well. But when you DO have the experience then you know you're not wrong. It's just that people do the reverse generalisation: If they are among those exceptions to your rule, they think that probably the majority is actually the exception to your rule.

And then of course there is the problem that people are quite comfortable while deluding themselves. I'm not say a lot of people actually are, but those that are are usually the most defensive about their positions.

[Orion]

Josh: If you like free-form roleplaying, check out story games, because you will like them even more.

Orion:I will not check out story games because I intuitively know they will be inferior to freeform roleplaying.

If you flip them, maybe. You specifically said "People who have tried both prefer structured," which is a gross generalisation that doesn't acknowledge subjectivity. That's my problem with your position. Thus, you have failed to convince me and you've lost credibility.

Much as I disagree with Josh, posting in a thread on a topic you've said you no longer have an interest in discussing DOES weaken your position.

I didn't say I'm not interested in discussing the topic. I said I'm not interested in talking to Josh about it any more. (NB: above, I am clarifying my objection to his position, not discussing the subject further.)

However, there is a point to saying things harshly: You do it to provoke some thought. And noone should ever be immune to that. I know we all get defensive if someone attacks our set ways, but sometimes we just SHOULDN'T. Because set ways are very rarely perfect.

Who are you talking about here? Because from my perspective, Josh is advocating a particular, and extreme, position, and I'm saying he hasn't convinced me. Who's getting defensive?

Probably you've been on the side of "too little" a few times. You're also just a bit too self-assured for some. It happens when you generalise based on experience. I do it, too, and people don't take it well. But when you DO have the experience then you know you're not wrong.

Then don't generalise. Couch your position with phrases like "from what I've observed," and bare in mind that anecdotal evidence is rarely convincing because, hey man, I don't know what you're making up or "massaging" to fit your position. Y'all are fond of quoting those parts of Classical rhetoric that suit you, but citing your own supposed authority is a fallacy. If you want to really stick to those classical rules, then you're left with logic and demonstrable evidence. A dash of humility never hurts, either.

It's just that people do the reverse generalisation: If they are among those exceptions to your rule, they think that probably the majority is actually the exception to your rule.

Let's assume, for a moment, that you're talking about me (you might not be, but that's how it seems). I'm not arguing that a majority agrees with me. I never have. I'm pointing out Josh's gross generalisations, and based on his abstinence, I'm choosing not to talk to him about that subject any more, except to attempt to explain to him why, which itself is starting to look like a pretty fruitless effort.

[Brainpiercing]

Look, all he's saying is "LOOK above your teacup."

He's saying it all weird ways, sometimes, but that's really all he's saying.

[PhoenixInferno]

Then don't generalise. Couch your position with phrases like "from what I've observed," and bare in mind that anecdotal evidence is rarely convincing because, hey man, I don't know what you're making up or "massaging" to fit your position...A dash of humility never hurts, either.

That is an illegal activity on Brilliant Gameologists - yellow card!

[Sunic_Flames]

Then don't generalise. Couch your position with phrases like "from what I've observed," and bare in mind that anecdotal evidence is rarely convincing because, hey man, I don't know what you're making up or "massaging" to fit your position...A dash of humility never hurts, either.

That is an illegal activity on Brilliant Gameologists - yellow card!

PI > thread.

[Josh]

So the problem becomes, "how much do you say to get them to start thinking in the direction you are looking?"

Probably you've been on the side of "too little" a few times.

I have been on both sides, too little is the much better side.

And then of course there is the problem that people are quite comfortable while deluding themselves. I'm not say a lot of people actually are, but those that are are usually the most defensive about their positions.

Most people delude themselves.

Josh: If you like free-form roleplaying, check out story games, because you will like them even more.

Orion:I will not check out story games because I intuitively know they will be inferior to freeform roleplaying.

If you flip them, maybe. You specifically said "People who have tried both prefer structured," which is a gross generalisation that doesn't acknowledge subjectivity. That's my problem with your position. Thus, you have failed to convince me and you've lost credibility.

Let me translate

Orion: No, I do not agree.

Yes I did say that.  First, it happens to be true, and how does it not include subjectivity?  Everyone is objective in this case?

However, there is a point to saying things harshly: You do it to provoke some thought. And noone should ever be immune to that. I know we all get defensive if someone attacks our set ways, but sometimes we just SHOULDN'T. Because set ways are very rarely perfect.

Who are you talking about here? Because from my perspective, Josh is advocating a particular, and extreme, position, and I'm saying he hasn't convinced me. Who's getting defensive?

Yes.  Openmindedness and trying things before you judge them is extreme.

Then don't generalise. Couch your position with phrases like "from what I've observed," and bare in mind that anecdotal evidence is rarely convincing because, hey man, I don't know what you're making up or "massaging" to fit your position. Y'all are fond of quoting those parts of Classical rhetoric that suit you, but citing your own supposed authority is a fallacy. If you want to really stick to those classical rules, then you're left with logic and demonstrable evidence. A dash of humility never hurts, either.

Humanity is for suckers.  Get over the analysis of technique and focus on the subject. 

Or give up.  Or do something else.

[Brainpiercing]

Humanity is for suckers.

It's easy to be an elitist on the internet.

Just don't give in to the illusion that it means anything.

[Josh]

Humanity is for suckers.

It's easy to be an elitist on the internet.

Just don't give in to the illusion that it means anything.

Right. 

All the elaborate proof and analysis are meaningless.  The fact that I can answer every question and talking point is meaningless.  the fact that my point is utterly obvious, also meaningless.

Lets focus on my confidence.

[Brainpiercing]

Humanity is for suckers.

It's easy to be an elitist on the internet.

Just don't give in to the illusion that it means anything.

Right. 

All the elaborate proof and analysis are meaningless.  The fact that I can answer every question and talking point is meaningless.  the fact that my point is utterly obvious, also meaningless.

Lets focus on my confidence.

Oh, KNOWLEDGE means something. But being elitist about it on the internet is moot. If you are just as elitist in this little insignificant sad fact of life we call the real world, and you still have friends, THEN you're really elitist. Because when you're playing games, it shouldn't be lonely at the top.

[Talen Lee]

You're just being counter-elitist and refusing to discuss the point. In essence, you're saying 'You're right, but I don't like how you're right,' which is the kind of mentality that lends itself to 'let's give Intelligent Design equal time, let's be nice to the poor dears, yes, I know they're totally nonsensical, but still.'

Sometimes things can just be wrong.

[Brainpiercing]

You're just being counter-elitist and refusing to discuss the point. In essence, you're saying 'You're right, but I don't like how you're right,' which is the kind of mentality that lends itself to 'let's give Intelligent Design equal time, let's be nice to the poor dears, yes, I know they're totally nonsensical, but still.'

Sometimes things can just be wrong.

Oh I've been discussing the topic, I think. And I agree (like you said), up to "humanity is for suckers". But even that is ok on the internet, as long as you don't confuse it with the real world.
In addition I tend to think that even though the "others" may be idiots, that doesn't necessarily make me better than them.

And finally, at the end of the elitist spectrum you get guys like Ubernoob, who are so stuck up in their high castles that to the outside world they just seem like autistic kids who might think they are saying remarkably smart things, but they just don't make sense to anyone but themselves. Is that something worth shooting for? I think not.

So, sometimes things are just wrong. True, factually wrong. But we're not arguing facts, we're arguing statistics and probabilities layed out with a lot of confidence. And even more importantly: We're talking about games and fun. Whatever we decide for ourselves here won't change the world.

And really, all I'm saying is that while you are elititist about games you should make sure to keep some friends.

[Talen Lee]

Whatever we decide for ourselves here won't change the world.

Under memeplex theory, it kinda does, but now I'm getting wibbly.

[jcm]

And really, all I'm saying is that while you are elititist about games you should make sure to keep some friends.

The internet is for porn and being a jackass in public. Why would you want friends here?

[flannel]

Counterelitism... really?

[Brainpiercing]

The internet is for porn and being a jackass in public. Why would you want friends here?

QFT...