Author: DocStout (---.home.com)
Date: 10-20-2001 12:30
A few points which this article chose to open with, I have a bit of an issue with. The concept that no one is right or wrong depends on the viewpoint that there is no objective reality. This relativistic view, while currently in vogue amongst certin breeds of pseudo-intellectuals, is the most well-regarded academic strawman in the course of logical discussion. It is a wonderful trump card that can be played in any emergency when you are defeated by reason or logic, to say "Well, it turns out I *can't* be wrong. There's no such thing." If there is no objective reality, and what is real is not merely filtered through our different perspectives, but defined by them, there is not much of a point in forming a lasting belief in anything, as any paradigm shift will literally redefine the world. I do not mean to suggest that everyone who believes that they know the truth are automatically right, but truth, in an objective sense, leaves evidence that can be analyzed both empirically and intuitively.
Second, any article that discusses roleplaying games that suggests they quest for "realism" suffer from a lack of proper vocabulary. Realism is only a goal in a game which intends to be a simulation. Versilimitude, or the internal consistency to create the appearance of reality, is the goal of most rpgs, and coming out and using the correct word from the start allows much unnecessary academic posturing to be cut from an article, thus making it more concise, and less muddled.
Eventually, this turned into an interesting article, but when broken down, much of the same *actual*, you-can-turn-them-over-in-your-brain points made could have been said in a single paragraph.
--DocStout
|
|
