Social Mandate: Did you remember to bring your guitar?
Bastoche:
Quote from: Callan S. on January 08, 2008, 01:54:58 AM
How many times have they decided to hit the puck?
If I sit down to say, play the card game 'lunch money', and I happen to play three games of it, the three games aren't one activity just because they happened one after the other. Nor is each hit of the puck part of some activity. Each hit is its own individual game. A games size is defined by your intent/goals, and how far those reach. In your example their goals don't go any further than hitting it once - they haven't planned to hit it a certain number of times, or until a certain number of goals are achieved.
'Course, a lot of gamers are used to roleplay where they roll some dice here, or roll some dice there - but never with any real goal in mind except rolling the dice at that time. But they see the hours spent at it as a single session, even when its nothing of the sort. It's a series of small unassociated games, with some games forced to start from results of others, but not with any overall goal for all the activity. It's like the goalie throwing the puck back from the last goal and the next game of hitting a goal starts from where it lands - it's just hapstance result from the last game played, it's not an indicator of some larger activity.
Playing the game of 'hit the puck' multiple times doesn't add up to anything bigger - you'll only learn whatever is to be learned from hitting a puck.
You either lost me or misunderstood me. The game is not "hitting the puck" (once) it's ABOUT hitting the puck. In other words, they play hockey because they like to hit the puck. But you are pushing my example WAY beyond where I intended it to go lol.
My point is, I, sometimes play "hockey" for "playing hockey's sake" rather then "to make my team win the hockey game" and it was fun nonetheless and we played as hard as possible despite the lack of "winning" opportunities and/or incentives. That was my point. If I understood you correctly, your point about "winning" is as a waranty that players involved in the game "want", hence the incentive (winning part) right?
Callan S.:
Hi Fred,
Quote
I believe you can have a win/lose situation in any game: Was your character successful? You win. Otherwise, you lost. But did you have fun? That's where there the successful/unsuccessful play comes in.
Lets say I bake a cake, a sweet one. I follow the recipe perfectly. And I give it to someone who has no tastebuds that taste sweetness. Was it unsuccessful? Or lets say I bake a cake with almonds in it, following the recipe just right, and someone who has a nut alergy eats it. Was I unsuccessful?
Procedure is quite seperate from a targets capacity to enjoy said procedure. Gamer culture has been 'OMFG, he's not happy, fudge the rules, fudge the rules, change the procedure till he's happy!'. But it's BS. There's no point to thinking about succesful/unsuccesful play. You can't reinforce some 'play the rules' mandate by saying 'Because when you do the game will be successful' to a guy who has no tastebuds for it, if you get my mix of analogy. You'd be lying, for a start. Only if you can guarantee succesful play can you support such a mandate, and given human diversity of taste, it can't be guaranteed. However, what we do have recurring in our culture is a sense of wining and losing, in relation to board games and associated games. That can reinforce procedure, even if the procedure isn't to the users taste in the end.
Callan S.:
Hi Bastoche,
Quote
My point is, I, sometimes play "hockey" for "playing hockey's sake" rather then "to make my team win the hockey game" and it was fun nonetheless and we played as hard as possible despite the lack of "winning" opportunities and/or incentives.
How do you know you played as hard as possible, when you didn't measure it? When you didn't count goals and such, which would have measured that?
If your mind is sharp enough to have been measuring all things, your still using a measurement system as explicit as goals. That it's in your head makes no difference than if you wrote it on a scrap of paper. On the other hand, plenty of people will say they had a bad night of rolling, where if each roll was actually recorded, it would show the rolls came out to a standard average. The idea they knew what actually happened is a delusion born of selective memory. I can't argue you into self doubt, where you become uncertain of just how hard you played. But you can see I don't take your statement (of how hard you played) as a supporting arguement. I wont argue you into doubt if you don't try to argue me into how certain you are. :) Having listened to each other, well have to leave it there.
Bastoche:
Quote from: Callan S. on January 08, 2008, 04:35:55 PM
How do you know you played as hard as possible, when you didn't measure it? When you didn't count goals and such, which would have measured that?
Because it was fun.
Callan S.:
It's raising another topic to ask, but under that measurement: if it didn't turn out fun, would that mean you hadn't played hard enough. That it would be fun if you had just played harder?
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page