I'm eccentric and so are my views. I'm of the opinion that the hobby needs more eccentricity and that eccentricity should be promoted and celebrated. Consequently, my stated opinions are a mishmash colored both by my generally rationalist/intellectualist bent, my (too many) years as a student of philosophy and history, my experiences playing for almost 30 years, and the ring of contrariness I've worn on my right hand since 1979. All of these things govern my tastes and interests and are powerfully at work in the posts I write here.
Still, it's always fascinating to see what people choose to criticize me for. No matter what position I take on any topic, it's pretty much guaranteed to set someone off.
- Talk too much about the history of the hobby in the 1970s and I'm denigrating the experiences of gamers who started playing later
- Suggest Brian Blume wasn't the Antichrist and I'm betraying the memory of Gary Gygax
- Praise Gary Gygax at all and I'm making an idol of him
- State that not every lacuna or ambiguity in OD&D is a philosophical statement about game design and I'm a new schooler in disguise
- Speak well of Paizo or their products and I'm a shill
- Criticize 4e and I'm a bitter old man who doesn't get it
I forge on nonetheless. I'm having too much fun to be discouraged. My weird little take on things has mostly engendered a lot of good and positive thoughts in others, which is exactly what I wanted to do. I'll continue to refine my style and presentation, of course, in order to alleviate future misunderstandings. Mind you, on the Internet, nuance rarely wins you points, so I expect my somewhat "academic" style will always have its detractors. So be it.