anyway.

If you prefer a friendlier formulation, Chris' Fun Now Manifesto.

Sometimes, at GenCon for instace in the dealers' hall, you can watch someone have this very interesting, very informative, very sad little experience. He's been looking forward to buying the new book, right? Let's have it be the Ars Magica 4th Edition book, but it could be any of 'em. He makes his way to the front of the line! He picks up the book, he flips through it.

You can SEE the disappointment on his face.

He buys it anyway. He was going to buy it so he buys it, even though he sees plain as day that it won't be any more fun than what he's got now. He hands over his cash and walks away with his shoulders down.

How much fun did you say you're having? by Eric Provost.

We judge each others' fun all the time. Judging each others' fun is, first of all, valid and easy, but more, it's an important, valuable, essential thing for us big-brained social apes to do.

I've been doing pretty serious RPG-as-fiction theory outreach for a couple years now, right?

Brain-damaged-as-such or not, some people have a really, really, really hard time understanding. I say, "look, here's a conflict" and they just can't read it.

It's not - I'm pretty sure - it's not because they can read it but they disagree. When that happens, they say "that's not a conflict, because blah blah." And I say "oh, you're right, how about this conflict instead?" And they say "cool, go on." Or else I say "it IS a conflict, because blah blah." And they say "oh, yeah, cool, go on." Or else they say "conflict, getcha, but I really don't care about conflicts" and I say "cool, to each her own."

No, as far as I can tell, it's because they just can't read it. They can read the words, but at a certain level they're functionally illiterate.

I'm not thinking of anyone in particular here. Just reflecting on my experience overall.

Is "functionally illiterate," I wonder, more offensive or less than "brain damaged"?