No, come la manica di legnate che ti arriva adesso da me, anche se è OT.
Per favore, ve lo chiedo in ginocchio. Piantiamola di parlare di Brain Damage (con le maiscole, in inglese... è chiaro che si riferisce al concetto di Edwards) quando non è di Brain Damage di cui stiamo parlando.
Non fa altro che fomentare quelli che "Edwards dice che il gioco tradizionale fa male al cervello!"
Edwards ha si parlato di Brain Damage, ma solo per un caso molto determinato, e l'ha fatto agganciandosi a concetti neurologici precisi (più o meno e spiegato alla bruto la possibilità di rintracciare una configurazione neuronale specifica per determinati comportamenti, ovvero la base fisica dei nostri pensieri).
Prima di usare il termine "brain damage" leggete obbligatoriamente
questo.
In particolare:
[cite]Autore: Moreno Roncucci[/cite][p]R: It was in the mid-nineties that I think, a bunch of people were hit at the right time with the right promises, the right subcultural context - and the wrongest possible game to attempt to satisfy it in such a way that they would sieze upon it and insist in their own minds that this *must* deliver, to make it deliver you have to do a whole bunch of things that are effectively not going to work. That sounds contradictory, to make it deliver you're going to do things that don't work, but that's effectively what happens. You get monstrous railroading, you get monstrous flailing about when to use or not use the resolution system, you get incredible social games to try to keep the group together - because if you can't keep the group together, then it's not working, so people will pull all kinds of head games on each other to keep the group together. Why is it specific to "story now"? Because the other itches can get much more easily scratched. You can ignore a bunch of stuff in Vampire and play a fairly highly competitive game and enjoy it. It can be done. It's harder - you've got to really give up on 50% of the stuff in the book to do it, it's harder than it would have been with a lot of the earlier games - but you can do it. But if you try to do that and get rid of a lot of the competitive elements in the game, you know, like in Werewolf for example there's many competitive elements, but you want to do some "story now" Werewolf so you slice out some of those competitive elements but what's left isn't going to work.[/p][p]And so my claim, is that you get a number of people who are so internally and externally trained to play in a way that is impossible to satisfy. And the reason I call it brain damage is because it's ingrained at that developmental level of these people coming into adulthood.[/p][p]I: So you're not talking about physicality, then?[/p][p]P: Is behaviour physiological?[/p][p]I: Good question.[/p][p]P: Is behaviour physiological? Do you have hormones, do you have brain impulses, do you have electricity in your head? We do. And the way that those turn into what we call personality is through experience - that's a physiological process. If a person has undergone a serious trauma - say as a pre-teen - and their ability to cope with later situations that remind them of that trauma, or may not even be exactly the same trauma but they've got it so ingrained in them that they'll react to it as though it is - is that or is that not damage to that person? Did not the person who inflicted the trauma on that pre-teen cause damage?[/p][p]I: Right... What I'm stumbling on, I guess is that, probably this would lead off to a debate that I'm not sure I'm ready to get into because that would take away from everywhere else that I'd like to go, but, um.. I think that you're completely right that all those things exist, and I also think there's a function of us - I think it's multi-level, multi-layered, and so I understand what you're saying that there's a level where the behaviour actually would make .. it does have some kind of thing..[/p][p]R: Let me make it a little clearer. I wouldn't call it "damage" if we was talking about people who were experiencing all these phenomena I'm talking about at 25. Because that's when, I mean there are other things going on for the person but, on the average, people at the ages I'm talking about are putting together the kind of adults they're going to be.[/p][p]I: Ok, let me try this again.. what's tripping me up, personally, if you take a stake and drive it in a guy's head that's obviously brain damage, I understand that, that's physical. If you were to jump across the table and grab me by the throat, and then I'm afraid to get near your house again or something, I understand there's some kind of basis there but that's what tripping me up - I personally don't see that as physical and that's why I'm having a hard time following.[/p][p]R: I understand that. That's why we should probably focus on what I keep mentioning, which is the business of the teen mind developing into the adult mind.[/p][p]I: Aahhh! That makes it more clear, because the brain isn't fully developed?[/p][p]R: Right. Well, whether it's ever *fully* fully developed is one thing, it is continually added to, but there are definate windows and steps and things that will occur between the pre-teen phase and the earlier twenties that have a lot to do with what we might call values, habits, standards of behaviour and expectations.[/p][p]I: Now, that is absolutely perfectly clear to me what you're saying now.[/p]
Se non sei stato un adolescente che ha cercato disperatamente di tirare fuori una premise da Vampiri, fallendo e insistendo sempre di più, non hai subito brain damage, non nel senso in cui ne parla Edwards.
