Amazed by the lack of thought in your over generalized previous post,I am likewise amazed by your continued insistence of being condescending about a pretend insult I made that you yourself created.
It's not about an "insult" Cartigan. It's about what I believed to be your lack of thought about how much work can go into a game, with or without all the core classes. I believed you were managing "condescending" quite well before I stepped in and I replied in kind. But you are right, I shouldn't be and I apologize for being so. The latest turn in this thread has me a little wired.
I've been in discussions like this before on this board. No one ever convinces any one else of anything.Hey, I resemble that remark!
Thanks TOZ, I needed a laugh. It helps put things in perspective. LilithsThrall, you are quite right. Normally I manage to realize this without any help. Thanks for the humor and reality check gentlemen.
Ok so we have gotten monumentally off track.
I do believe that the point of this thread is not to discuss whether or not a dm can set standards for his gaming world. No disrespect to Snobi, but I think most people believe that a dm may set limits in their world as to what kind of creatures, cultures etc exist in it. Arguing things that have been in the DMG since the origin of the game seems a little silly to me.
I think the point here is, how and when should these limits be established. And what happens if either they fail to be established, or are ignored by the player, and the dm does not believe a certain character concept fits within their world. I believe that is at the heart of what happened with the OP, and really the meat of what we are talking about here.
I've been in discussions like this before on this board. No one ever convinces any one else of anything.
How often do we concince eachother of anything in any thread? And yet they continue on. I forget who it was when I that pointed it out to me in an alignment based thread, that basically, its about the mental excersize as opposed to actually being 'right' or convincing anyone of anything. No one 'wins' arguments on internet forums. Its just an amusing way to pass some time.
I wouldn't say that. I'd assume I could play the character I wanted. If/when told I couldn't, I'd bail.
Frankly, if a player dared to tell me "this is my favorite concept and you -will- GM so as to allow it!",
Yes, but what if at the outset, before you conceived your character, the DM set limits?
How often do we concince eachother of anything in any thread? And yet they continue on. I forget who it was when I that pointed it out to me in an alignment based thread, that basically, its about the mental excersize as opposed to actually being 'right' or convincing anyone of anything. No one 'wins' arguments on internet forums. Its just an amusing way to pass some time.I've been in discussions like this before on this board. No one ever convinces any one else of anything.
Okay, I've argued that it's just mental exercise and an amusing way to pass time. But, when you find yourself hashing the same arguments pro/con over and over again on an issue, it ceases to be a mental exercise or amusing.
Hell, I wouldn't be surprised if some of the people in this discussion are actually just a couple of lines of JavaScript some body now long dead wrote in the foggy past.
Now that could be a fun turing test. A program that only discussed cliched dnd topics.....
Besides sometimes something new is said or at least something someone in the conversation hasnt heard before. For instance snobi's perspective is completely new to me. That was interesting.
|
Yes, but what if at the outset, before you conceived your character, the DM set limits?I wouldn't say that. I'd assume I could play the character I wanted. If/when told I couldn't, I'd bail.
Frankly, if a player dared to tell me "this is my favorite concept and you -will- GM so as to allow it!",
That question was already answered.
I've been in discussions like this before on this board. No one ever convinces any one else of anything.
Oh come on, LT! There has to be a first time for everything!
My bottom line on this is similar, though. Everyone (including the DM) always has the option to walk if they don't like the way a campaign is structured, or the way the players are playing. Personally, I find the "if you don't want to play my way, I'll take my ball and go home attitude" a little childish but hey, that's just me. My group frequently plays campaigns that aren't really my cup of tea, but others enjoy. I try to be a good sport and go along with them. Why? Because it's not all about me and these are my friends. Amazingly enough, I sometimes (actually, most of the time) have a lot of fun in campaigns that I didn't like the look of when they started. That would be my advice to people. Give it a try. You might like it and expand your horizons.
"It's my ball and I'm going home" doesn't even factor into it. I mean, it might if there was only one person who could possibly GM, but any player can learn to GM.
I'm all for making concessions and I believe one learns to make concessions by being willing and ready to walk away and then having that be played against one's own desire to stay.
What I think isn't healthy is to be guilt tripped or feel obligated to do something you don't want to do or be harangued into doing something you don't want to do. Sure, they're your friends and, as your friends, they won't be hurt if you don't want to play.
While theoretically you are correct, and anyone can learn to GM, good GMs are more rare than good players. Sometimes folks just don't have the time to invest, sometimes they don't have the inclination, and sometimes they don't have the talent (yes, good DMing requires talent, IMHO considerably more than playing). My current group consists of eight people, but only three of us DM, and two of us do most of it.
I agree that no one should feel "forced" to do something they don't want to do. But let's keep some perspective here. No one is talking about forcing someone to sacrifice small children here. What we are talking about is whether it is reasonable for DMs to limit possible character concepts in any way, and whether you should walk away if they do. Certainly always someone's right to walk away if they aren't having fun. My point is mainly that you shouldn't limit yourself by thinking that you can only have fun if your character is exactly the way you envision it before even seeing the campaign world. I think it is healthy and yes, probably fun, to try different things.
And I hate to say it, but my friends probably would be hurt if I walked away from a game because it didn't appeal to me. Of course, that's mostly because we always play at my house, rather than because they would miss me so much! :)
That question was already answered.Yes, but what if at the outset, before you conceived your character, the DM set limits?I wouldn't say that. I'd assume I could play the character I wanted. If/when told I couldn't, I'd bail.
Frankly, if a player dared to tell me "this is my favorite concept and you -will- GM so as to allow it!",
I was under the impression he'd go in with what he wanted and bail if it was disallowed, but yes, it could be that way too.
|
Does this mean you wouldn't respect the work the DM put in on the coherence his vision of the campaign world - what cultures are there, what races and classes are available, and so on?
Correct, not when he's trampling on my personal space.
To put the question back around, why should a DM respect the work you put in on your character's backstory if you won't respect the campaign work he's done and any thematic or content restrictions that don't fit the campaign?
My work didn't involve tweaking/limiting his work. I recognized a boundary and stayed on my side of it.
|
|
Sadly for you, the requirement and right of the DM to set boundaries is IN the rules.
Whether it's in the rules or not, the DM needs players, unless he wants to boss himself around. If his boundaries extend into my personal space, he can play with himself.
Respect has to run both ways, and the players have to respect the DM: he's the guy with the hardest job at the table, and he's entitled to have fun as well.
If the only way the DM can have fun is by ensuring one or more of his player's isn't having fun, he's not the best DM ever. Maybe I'm the worst player ever for wanting to be able to control my character. Oh well.
Does this mean you wouldn't respect the work the DM put in on the coherence his vision of the campaign world - what cultures are there, what races and classes are available, and so on?Correct, not when he's trampling on my personal space.
My work didn't involve tweaking/limiting his work. I recognized a boundary and stayed on my side of it.
To put the question back around, why should a DM respect the work you put in on your character's backstory if you won't respect the campaign work he's done and any thematic or content restrictions that don't fit the campaign?
DMs do not create a campaign world solely around your preconceived character concepts, you know. This cannot be reasonably construed as "trampling on my personal space." If the DM tweaked your character post-character creation then there would be a problem. But if the DM rejects a character concept because it violates the flavors and themes of the campaign, there is no trampling. Only realistic checks and balances against a sense of entitlement.
Try working with the DM instead of against him. I'm sure the two of you could figure out a really awesome concept that syncs with the campaign world. Variety is the spice of life, and it's good for expanding your roleplaying skills. There is not only one fun character concept.
I will say it again, it makes no sense to walk into a Wendy's and demand a Big Mac.
|
|
For clarity, let's say that I am a player and the GM has established a "fall of the roman empire" kind of setting. I decide, "Hey, I want to play Martian Manhunter in this setting!"
Should the GM be able to say, "er..there are no martians in this campaign, create a different character concept"?Most people in this thread correctly say "yes, hell yes, the GM -should- be able to say that!"
And thus my pet peeve.
Concepts.
So wait, are you saying the dm shouldnt limit concepts or options?
Spes Magna Mark wrote:
If one of the players had showed up insisting on running a gnome artificer from Cormyr, we'd have all looked at him like he was stupid and then laughed.
Likewise, our group wouldn't tolerate a DM who restricted our character options.
What.
"It's my ball and I'm going home" doesn't even factor into it. I mean, it might if there was only one person who could possibly GM, but any player can learn to GM.
I'm all for making concessions and I believe one learns to make concessions by being willing and ready to walk away and then having that be played against one's own desire to stay.
What I think isn't healthy is to be guilt tripped or feel obligated to do something you don't want to do or be harangued into doing something you don't want to do. Sure, they're your friends and, as your friends, they won't be hurt if you don't want to play.While theoretically you are correct, and anyone can learn to GM, good GMs are more rare than good players. Sometimes folks just don't have the time to invest, sometimes they don't have the inclination, and sometimes they don't have the talent (yes, good DMing requires talent, IMHO considerably more than playing). My current group consists of eight people, but only three of us DM, and two of us do most of it.
I agree that no one should feel "forced" to do something they don't want to do. But let's keep some perspective here. No one is talking about forcing someone to sacrifice small children here. What we are talking about is whether it is reasonable for DMs to limit possible character concepts in any way, and whether you should walk away if they do. Certainly always someone's right to walk away if they aren't having fun. My point is mainly that you shouldn't limit yourself by thinking that you can only have fun if your character is exactly the way you envision it before even seeing the campaign world. I think it is healthy and yes, probably fun, to try different things.
And I hate to say it, but my friends probably would be hurt if I walked away from a game because it didn't appeal to me. Of course, that's mostly because we always play at my house, rather than because they would miss me so much! :)
I think there is a sliding scale there. In terms of limiting fun. I agree that just about any game i play with my friends will be some measure of fun. When we hang out and do nothing it's fun. But just some fun is not to me worth the commitment that gaming is, and certainly not dming. That is alot of leisure time I dont have much of (the whole adult thing puts a real damper on gaming doesnt it?).
So while I might still have some fun playing a gritty, low magic, struggle to survive campaign (an example of something i dont enjoy much that is somewhat common among fantasy gamers) i wouldn't enjoy it enough to say, duck out of my saturday morning soccer league for it. Or take time away from my tabletop gaming hobby. There is definately a point where restrictions on a game (and by restrictions i mean restrictions you dont like, and not just any old restriction) takes your heart out of a game.
An example comes from a star wars game a friend of mine was running. I've seen the movies, even multiple times. I liked them as a kid. But i was never 'into' the whole universe, the books, comics etc. So for me, the cool characters in star wars are jedi, and han solo. There was already a pair of scoundrels, so another solo wasnt a solid option. And the dm forbit more then 1 jedi and I was not the first to ask about being one. I tried playing a wookie, and it was kind of fun, but i couldn't get 'into' the character. I eventually realized it wasnt worth the lost sleep (conflicting schedules means sometimes games run late into the evenings on days i have work the next day) or just the lost time. So I decided not to attend that game for a while. Eventually it got a reboot with fewer restrictions and I ended up rejoining and playing one of my all time favorite characters in the game.
I think is you dont sometimes take your ball and go home your fellow players/dms even if you are friends, dont realize you arent having as much fun as you probably ought to be. So while i think it should be considered carefully, and compromises should be attempted first, I think eventually if you cant get PART of what you want in a game, its often not worth the commitment to it.
Concepts.
So wait, are you saying the dm shouldnt limit concepts or options?What.Spes Magna Mark wrote:
If one of the players had showed up insisting on running a gnome artificer from Cormyr, we'd have all looked at him like he was stupid and then laughed.
Likewise, our group wouldn't tolerate a DM who restricted our character options.
LOL
LOLConcepts.
So wait, are you saying the dm shouldnt limit concepts or options?What.Spes Magna Mark wrote:
If one of the players had showed up insisting on running a gnome artificer from Cormyr, we'd have all looked at him like he was stupid and then laughed.
Likewise, our group wouldn't tolerate a DM who restricted our character options.
My thoughts as well. By this stage I'm fairly confident to call troll.
|
|
Yes, I'm selfish and inconsiderate because I won't let the DM control my character.OK, hypothetical situation for you: You (and others) are at a general games meeting and the guy meant to be running the game for you has called in sick, and you realise no-one else has a game you can play. There's a new guy at the club you get talking to who offers to run a game as he has a scenario on him, but he says:
"As I only have the basics here, and we don't know each other and we have to start from scratch, I want to keep it Pathfinder core only, all characters from Golarian."
Is he (a) being a nice guy by offering to run a game for a bunch of strangers he doesn't know and doesn't owe anything to, or (b) a disrespectful bastard for insisting that the game be core-only and characters all be from Golarian and this impairing your creativity?
And then I add, "Since you're new and we're kind of in a crunch here, make sure we encounter these NPCs in the following order" as I hand him my demands. I'd say we're equally nice.
Does this mean you wouldn't respect the work the DM put in on the coherence his vision of the campaign world - what cultures are there, what races and classes are available, and so on?Correct, not when he's trampling on my personal space.
My work didn't involve tweaking/limiting his work. I recognized a boundary and stayed on my side of it.
To put the question back around, why should a DM respect the work you put in on your character's backstory if you won't respect the campaign work he's done and any thematic or content restrictions that don't fit the campaign?
Actually that's completely false. The DM HAS to use your backstory and character's personality to guide your character or hook him. That completely limits his work. The only reason you're using this angle of argument is because you like using whatever source material you want, not what would be appropriate. I think my previous post really says a lot about what your motivation is. See, the DM's role is also to prevent broken mechanical aspects from taking control of the game. You say that this is wrong because it infringes on your character concept.
Well, let me put it this way: Just play the paladin as a holy fighter. After all, if your character CONCEPT is the only problem, than using slightly different crunch shouldn't be an issue. Certainly, nothing to mount a complaint about.
My thoughts as well. By this stage I'm fairly confident to call troll.LOLConcepts.
So wait, are you saying the dm shouldnt limit concepts or options?What.Spes Magna Mark wrote:
If one of the players had showed up insisting on running a gnome artificer from Cormyr, we'd have all looked at him like he was stupid and then laughed.
Likewise, our group wouldn't tolerate a DM who restricted our character options.
I smell trollflesh.
|
Spes Magna Mark wrote:
If one of the players had showed up insisting on running a gnome artificer from Cormyr, we'd have all looked at him like he was stupid and then laughed.
Likewise, our group wouldn't tolerate a DM who restricted our character options.
I hope your group at least allows him to run patches and OS updates.
entitlement troll is...entitled.
Successful Troll is proud of Successful Troll's fellow trolls accomplishments in this thread.
|
|
A classic player's "rightsist" (to borrow a term from Glenn Cook). Note "player" is singular. It seems to involve no consideration for the DM or other players.
Plural. I think every player should have control over their characters.
Then play with another group rather than ruin everybody else's day. Theres an idea. All things considered, I gather you haven't played at too many tables, especially if you consider setting some ground rules for a campaign "controlling".
Like I said, I do walk if the DM controls my character. It does mean more playing with established groups and less playing with strangers.
As opposed to you trampling the DM and the other players? The point is you are the one who seems unwilling to work with others.
I don't tell the DM how to run his game. I don't try to control other players' characters.
My apologies if I got offensive, you struck a nerve obviously.
No offense taken.
Whether it's in the rules or not, the DM needs players, unless he wants to boss himself around. If his boundaries extend into my personal space, he can play with himself.
That's the DMing style I use, and funny thing, I never seem to want for players.
I bet it's lonely where you are.
I'd walk.
Yes, but what if at the outset, before you conceived your character, the DM set limits?
I will always remember to set limits. It's for the best!
|
|
But if the DM rejects a character concept because it violates the flavors and themes of the campaign, there is no trampling. Only realistic checks and balances against a sense of entitlement.
I don't hand the DM a list of things and say "Please don't include these in your world as they would violate the flavor and theme of my character." I accept his world as-is.
I don't hand the DM a list of things and say "Please don't include these in your world as they would violate the flavor and theme of my character." I accept his world as-is.
But if the DM rejects a character concept because it violates the flavors and themes of the campaign, there is no trampling. Only realistic checks and balances against a sense of entitlement.
Oh really?
And then I add, "Since you're new and we're kind of in a crunch here, make sure we encounter these NPCs in the following order" as I hand him my demands. I'd say we're equally nice.
At least make me go back a page next time.
I don't hand the DM a list of things and say "Please don't include these in your world as they would violate the flavor and theme of my character." I accept his world as-is.
But if the DM rejects a character concept because it violates the flavors and themes of the campaign, there is no trampling. Only realistic checks and balances against a sense of entitlement.
Except that you don't accept his world unless it specifically allows your character concept.
One important thing I feel that has been overlooked in this tedious back-and-forth is that the characteristic theme of snobi's posts is not sublimation, but presublimation. The player-DM relationship in these posts is contextualised into a subcultural narrative that includes narrativity as a reality. The main theme is, therefore, a critique of constructive desituationism as the common ground between DM and player.
Duh.
The problem is of course what do you do about the number of spells that include EXP as a cost to cast the spell?here are some memories of rulings from my previous dming attemptsAll perfectly reasonable - in fact I like the idea of no-XP, like True20. I think the holy grail of "gaining XP" overshadows a game by players making sometimes strange choices because they think they will get MORE XP (and more XP is good).
+1 on your DM rulings.
PS: Ask any of my players ever - I hate the idea of "magic shops", and I'm about as tight as a seals backside when it comes to handing them out. Adventuring is about the players being heroic not collecting pluses... RANT over and out :)
the leveling rule was post pathfinder.
One important thing I feel that has been overlooked in this tedious back-and-forth is that the characteristic theme of snobi's posts is not sublimation, but presublimation. The player-DM relationship in these posts is contextualised into a subcultural narrative that includes narrativity as a reality. The main theme is, therefore, a critique of constructive desituationism as the common ground between DM and player.
Duh.
The thing you might be overlooking is that in snobi's posts, a predominant concept is the concept of semantic culture. The characteristic theme of the works of snobi is not dematerialism, but neodematerialism. Therefore, the premise of posttextual gamism suggests that sexual identity, somewhat ironically, has significance, but only if art is distinct from narrativity; if that is not the case, Kryptik's model of realism is one of “postmodernist simulationism”, and hence part of the defining characteristics of the game.
The thing you might be overlooking is that in snobi's posts, a predominant concept is the concept of semantic culture. The characteristic theme of the works of snobi is not dematerialism, but neodematerialism. Therefore, the premise of posttextual gamism suggests that sexual identity, somewhat ironically, has significance, but only if art is distinct from narrativity; if that is not the case, Kryptik's model of realism is one of “postmodernist simulationism”, and hence part of the defining characteristics of the game.
True, but if one examines patriarchial objectivism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the Gygaxian reading or conclude that DMing is used to reinforce colonialist perceptions of truth.
True, but if one examines patriarchial objectivism, one is faced with a choice: either reject the Gygaxian reading or conclude that DMing is used to reinforce colonialist perceptions of truth.
Well, if patriarchial theory holds, we have to choose between narrativist construction and subdialectic simulationism. In a sense, Dabbler suggests the use of narrativist neoconceptual theory to attack the player base divisions and class divisions.
|
|
if the dm cant set ANY limits, then the player run amok in the dm's gaming world.
DM: so i wanna run a no magic setting in my campaign
Player: awesome, i'm gonna be a wizard who goes arcane trickster
DM: umm.. no magic
Player: i know, so I'll beat everyone since they cant use magic
see how stupid and childish that sounds?
Now if it goes
DM: so i wanna run a no magic setting in my campaign
Player: awesome, but i wanna be a wizard who goes arcane trickster
DM: umm.. no magic
Player: ok, doesn't sound like my kinda campaign. maybe next time.
not every game a dm wants to run is a game everyone wants to play. but if a player wants to play the game they do have to deal with a dm's world and its laws. if the DM rules all humans are born with bunny ears and polka-dots, then they are.
now once a dm allows stuff, the player gets free reign of it. but DM's arent obligated to use splat books or every variant a player asks for either
|
I don't hand the DM a list of things and say "Please don't include these in your world as they would violate the flavor and theme of my character." I accept his world as-is.
But if the DM rejects a character concept because it violates the flavors and themes of the campaign, there is no trampling. Only realistic checks and balances against a sense of entitlement.
I really must ask. What World? The one handed to you by WotC or Paizo, written real live human beings imposing their ideas on you, not Gaming Gods (although I suspect Lisa to be one of these)? By only having classes X and races Y in the PHB(s) by definition they ARE limiting your character choices. But you are willing to accept "control" from people you don't know rather than accept a few limitations from what I would guess be your friends?
Not saying this isn't a valid way to live your life, but I personally couldn't be so righteous.
S.
Personally, if I have a character concept, I try to build said concept within the "laws" of the campaign.
I think there's many ways, with fluff or crunch, to make most concepts viable in most settings. It's simply a matter of having the GM and player have a civil discussion about what each other wants. I think that if people treat each other with respect and actually listen to what the other is saying, a compromise is not impossible.
Of course, some concepts are just way too out-of-synch to mesh with the campaign. For example, what if somebody wants to play a gunslinger in a middle-ages setting? Or, what if somebody wants to play a (WoD-style) werewolf mystic in a Pathfinder setting--starting at first level? There are some concepts that may not work for some settings; that seems plain to me. But if I really wanted my concept to work, I might try to make it happen, as closely as possible, with the "laws" that exist in the campaign's "reality".
I suppose what I just don't understand is some of the general obtuseness present in arguements such as this. Why does anybody "have" to be right? Why do some people feel it necessary to hold onto whatever view they may have, regardless of the fact that it just makes them appear obstinate and combative?
Oh, well. I guess I'm just peacemaker that needs to mind his own business . . . .
Well, if patriarchial theory holds, we have to choose between narrativist construction and subdialectic simulationism. In a sense, Dabbler suggests the use of narrativist neoconceptual theory to attack the player base divisions and class divisions.
Excellent analysis. It must be mentioned that this is not first instance of Dabbler's narrativist neoconceptual theory inducing conflict. Furthermore, contra snobi, simulationist critiques of the gamist camp notwithstanding, the implication is clearly that consciousness is part of the meaninglessness of the DM-player dichotomy. Ipso facto, we return to the substructuralist paradigm of context.
QED
(And to think earlier people were saying that agreement could never be reached!)
Personally, if I have a character concept, I try to build said concept within the "laws" of the campaign.
I think there's many ways, with fluff or crunch, to make most concepts viable in most settings. It's simply a matter of having the GM and player have a civil discussion about what each other wants. I think that if people treat each other with respect and actually listen to what the other is saying, a compromise is not impossible.
Of course, some concepts are just way too out-of-synch to mesh with the campaign. For example, what if somebody wants to play a gunslinger in a middle-ages setting? Or, what if somebody wants to play a (WoD-style) werewolf mystic in a Pathfinder setting--starting at first level? There are some concepts that may not work for some settings; that seems plain to me. But if I really wanted my concept to work, I might try to make it happen, as closely as possible, with the "laws" that exist in the campaign's "reality".
I suppose what I just don't understand is some of the general obtuseness present in arguements such as this. Why does anybody "have" to be right? Why do some people feel it necessary to hold onto whatever view they may have, regardless of the fact that it just makes them appear obstinate and combative?
Oh, well. I guess I'm just peacemaker that needs to mind his own business . . . .
Because being unreasonable is the same as being noble by refusing to compromise these days. Kids think it's cool! Also if you believe different situations should be handled differently, you are a hypocrite, which is a bad thing. Obviously, it's not nearly as good as letting one situation sink into the mire because your beliefs didn't know how to deal with it properly.
I can be obtuse and hate all the wrong angles of the argument without letting the hate seep into my arguments. But then again, because I can admit when I'm wrong, I lose a lot of credibility.
You are not a big man if you compromise, but if you don't compromise you are an idiot. That's what this thread has taught me.
Well, if patriarchial theory holds, we have to choose between narrativist construction and subdialectic simulationism. In a sense, Dabbler suggests the use of narrativist neoconceptual theory to attack the player base divisions and class divisions.Excellent analysis. It must be mentioned that this is not first instance of Dabbler's narrativist neoconceptual theory inducing conflict. Furthermore, contra snobi, simulationist critiques of the gamist camp notwithstanding, the implication is clearly that consciousness is part of the meaninglessness of the DM-player dichotomy. Ipso facto, we return to the substructuralist paradigm of context.
QED
(And to think earlier people were saying that agreement could never be reached!)
Certainly. Also consider the following quote:
“I think every player should have control over their characters.”says snobi; however, according to Kryptik, it is not so much the character that is part of the futility of narrativity, but rather the player, and some would say the control, of characters. However, TriOmegaZero says
"There's more c&#@ waving here than your average porno."
suggesting the use of subtextual conceptual theory to analyse sexual identity. Kolokotroni’s analysis of gamist obscurity holds that reality is used to disempower the GM.
|
|
postmodern
I love terms like this, they are so, well meaningless. Then social scientists wonder why the World laughs at them? Of course in response the same said social scientists would invent a few more meaningless terms to explain why the World doesn't understand their important role in human sociointeractive externalizations.
:)
PS: Postmodern is a construct of the art scene not social scientists of course, but they do seem to have latched onto the term.