You see being inflammatory is a tool that is available to an author. It can be very effective if used in a manner that is true to his writing style. Whether or not it’s appropriate depends on the subject matter, the audience, and their goals. It’s very subjective, and it's always a gamble to use. I think I used it to great effect over here.
Why did I choose to be aggressive?
1). The flip side of my argument was well established.
this looks... "easy"
I was facing an uphill battle. I heard over and over that "flavor trumps rules". Every RPG echo chamber reverberated with these words. I knew I was never going to convince a large number of people anyways. So what did I have to lose?
2). I wanted to create a large amount of commentary.
This is where I knew this tone would really shine. I knew our community loves to debate, and loves to prove each other wrong. That the people who agree with me would really agree with me, and the people who disagree would really disagree. They would be passionate. There would be the folks that you wouldn’t be able to sway regardless of the circumstance. It wouldn’t matter if their favorite deity (Odin, Bahamut, or Eros) handed them a stone tablet etched with a divine counter argument.
Apparently god didn't cite his sources
3.) I was super passionate about my topic.
I knew that I had to be precise in how I went about this because there was a huge pitfall. If I let my emotions run out of check, and compromise my points. I had seen this play out so many times I couldn't help but write about it. I had stewed on this topic for years. I remember every railroad justified by "story trumps rules." I remember every time a player had to play a class he didn't like because the story demanded it. I also remember the good GM's where this didn't happen. How they cleverly worked around limitations so everyone got what they wanted. They taught me rules and flavor weren't zero sum. That you could have both. I needed to talk about that.
4.) I wasn't actually trying to convince a large group of people to side with me.
This is the response I expected
I wasn't looking for my echo chamber, I knew it didn't exist. Generally people like agreeing with people they like, and Boy, oh boy, were they going to hate me. The first people who spoke up are those who disagreed with me. They were offended because being a dick in the article made it feel personal. The people reading their responses tended to agree with them because I slighted them. It was important that this happened. Without that emotional push people who "knew better" wouldn't speak up.
It was time for the fun part. I got to write the article. I had to be aggressive without calling any one person out. That meant I didn’t use anyone's name or demean anything beyond the subject matter. When you demean an individual you become a bully and you lose a lot of credibility. It’s a point of professionalism. I'm a writer who is using a tool, namely the tone, to achieve a goal. Not some goon trying to browbeat people into agreeing with me. People will assume that you I am, and they’re going to be offended anyway. That’s ok. I know the difference and that’s the important bit. It’s also important to note that I felt I had no obligation to present the flip side to your argument. Everyone knows the counter argument. To present it would both take away from my argument and be redundant.
what being offended looks like
I think I succeeded in what I set out to do. At the time of writing I’ve gotten just shy of 1500 blog views, the facebook post reached almost 5,000 viewers and over 500 people engaged. I feel like I generated the conversation I wanted to. I do have only 16 followers on my channel, so maybe it’s not the best way to build a long-lasting fan base. 46 likes, 3 loves, 1 haha, 5 angry, 108 comments, 18 shares (of which I was the main perpetrator). "Ed the bard," wrote an article about it, which can be found here.
heereesssssss Ed!
Some folks told me I was a bad writer, I needed writing classes, or it was the worst one sided article ever written. I also had a lot of people deconstruct my argument and post their own views with a lot of banter. The only thing I regret about it was using so much profanity. It felt right at the time but, in retrospect, it limits makes my argument exclude some people. It really hit home when Ed felt like he had to attach a warning to my link. I intend to go back and edit out most of the profanity.
Despite all this, there were some unintentional consequences that presented as misconceptions
1.) I want to tell you how to run your game.
I don’t care what you play or how. I’m offering my opinion. To be truthful I think it’s correct, but I’m not going to fight with a stranger to enhance(in my estimation) his experience. Besides if you and yours are happy with you are doing, then you’re doing it right.
2.) I hate flavor.
I hate bad GMs and poor flavor choices that impact fun.
3.) I don’t know how to game master, I hate the game, or I should play lighter fare.
Normally I wouldn’t touch these ad hominem arguments, but I will say I have won local, small scene RPG contests. It’s how I went to Totalcon this year. That doesn't prove I’m any good, only that some people think I am, and that’s really the point. I enjoy table top roleplaying games.
I hope I cleared the air a little, and always folks, keep those games rolling.
The game mechanic
No comments:
Post a Comment