Charles:
> PPS Amazing! This is only the second time that I remember an
> argument in this group that involves frequent players on opposite
> sides...
What's amazing is that people can say things like this with a straight face...
Unless one is, from certain personal knowledge, possessed of the assured fact that everyone disagreeing with oneself in a debate doesn't play the game, or plays "infrequently" (definition sought...), this would seem a rash, if not to say indelicate, thing to say. I really wish this weren't trundled out nearly so often as it is. It frankly smacks of _assuming_ that anyone disagreeing with one must do from a point of view of "missing" something, or failure to grasp some seminal feature, and couldn't possibly represent a legitimately alternative point of view. I'm sure this was by no means Charles' intent, and he's certainly not a noted perpetrator of such, but it's getting to be a somewhat sore point, from various quarters.
I suppose this neatly ties in with Greg's remark on ad hominem argument. Though conversely...
Ian Cooper:
> HW (which is attested to be a far greater and more revolutionary game,
> even in its poorly presented 1st edition, on sites like the Forge)
This is true, and it must be said that there one also seems to get a much higher quality of discussion of "GNS issues" than one gets here. OTOH, if one were to caricature the occupants of this group as a bunch of Glorantha-obsessed, RQ-hidebound zealots, one might equally note that the Forge has biases of its own.
Cheers,
Alex.
Powered by hypermail