[D&D4E] Some WOTC encounters
Anders Gabrielsson:
Okay, now I'm even more confused. Earlier it seemed you were vehemently opposed to new measures of victory (number of encounters defeated per extended rest etc). Could you clarify?
Callan S.:
Quote
No, because as I have pointed out, that doesn't explain why people choose streetfighter over space invaders or vice versa.
I haven't explained it much as you haven't explained why
Quote
but simply for from an interest in the activities of which games A and B are comprised.
these people in your example have an an interest in these activities over something else?
If you want to treat 'play to win' as a content itself, then the 'play to win' people are choosing games with that 'playt to win' content in it. They may also like other content, but it's optional. It's like they want a steak, but they would like chips but if they can only have the steak and no chips, they are happy. Or maybe they would like a salad instead of chips, or some soup, but the same thing applies. You can't make a play to win desiring person happy by making really fucking awesome chips, but not serving any steak. You can add all the 'infantry only' switches you like, but if the game doesn't have the play to win steak, it don't mean a thing. In such a case, the 'infantry only' switch is worthless.
Frankly I think it takes an act of sympathy to recognise a different set of priorities, and I suspect theres a tension in this thread that will block that sympathy.
Quote
To borrow from the music analogy, you can't assert that a musician drawn to rock is less committed than one drawn to jazz and vice versa.
You can. The guy into jazz is less commited to rock (or not at all commited to rock, even).
The thing is, every time I say 'play to win', I think you want to claim that as something you do. Or that 'all gamers play to win!'. Well, whatever you do, your probably commited to it. But in terms of my 'play to win, version 2', you may not be and nor are alot of other people. And so what - do you need to feel you've met my 'play to win, V2' specifications - hardly!
Anders,
Quote
Okay, now I'm even more confused. Earlier it seemed you were vehemently opposed to new measures of victory (number of encounters defeated per extended rest etc). Could you clarify?
If the game has no win conditions defined at all, I'm vehemently opposed to making up some but pretending that that's really the win conditions of the game I originally came to play - it strikes me (at best) as being constructive denial. Emphasis on denial.
We can add on win conditions, but that's making a new game in doing so. Which isn't what I originally set out to do. How is it confusing for me to want to do an activity that already exists? I'll forwarn, if your a long term practitioner of constructive denail, I think that's why I'd look confusing. For the long term constructive denial practioner, it's as natural as drawing breath to invent a new game based on X, but to just say they are playing X. This might not apply to you, but its worth a footnote in case.
Anders Gabrielsson:
Quote
If the game has no win conditions defined at all, I'm vehemently opposed to making up some but pretending that that's really the win conditions of the game I originally came to play - it strikes me (at best) as being constructive denial.
That's the piece I was missing. Thanks for clarifying.
contracycle:
Quote from: Callan S. on August 10, 2011, 05:07:28 PM
If you want to treat 'play to win' as a content itself, then the 'play to win' people are choosing games with that 'playt to win' content in it.
Irrelevant. That has nothing to do with what I have suggested. I have always allowed that any game can be played in that way, but that there nevertheless is some choice as to which game to play. You keep denying any such choice except about commitment to winning.
Quote
. You can add all the 'infantry only' switches you like, but if the game doesn't have the play to win steak, it don't mean a thing. In such a case, the 'infantry only' switch is worthless.
Which is exactly where you are wrong. The infantry only games are still played to win. That's what I keep trying to point out to you, people have preferences for certain game content without that having any impact on their desire to win.
Quote
You can. The guy into jazz is less commited to rock (or not at all commited to rock, even).
That's not the simile I gave. Can you at least try to understand what I'm getting at?
Quote
The thing is, every time I say 'play to win', I think you want to claim that as something you do. Or that 'all gamers play to win!'.
No, I don't think that. Please address what I say, not what you imagine I said.
Callan S.:
Quote
Quote
The thing is, every time I say 'play to win', I think you want to claim that as something you do. Or that 'all gamers play to win!'.
No, I don't think that. Please address what I say, not what you imagine I said.
Except your saying exactly what I'm describing, below - I described what your saying and you then went and made the very claim I described.
Quote
Which is exactly where you are wrong. The infantry only games are still played to win.
You do want to claim they are playing to win, regardless of what I say.
By MY paradigm, either they admit they have made a new game, and then I grant that if they go on to use every resource in an attempt to win/they are playing to play to win (I've played single player FPS's where I have restricted myself to certain weapons - it was inventing a new game based on that FPS). Or if they are avoiding using planes and by ignoring valid parts of the game they are not playing to win - even as they intensely tell themselves it's about infantry, so were only playing infantry and so were playing the game intended. See the creative denial link above.
Quote
That's what I keep trying to point out to you, people have preferences for certain game content without that having any impact on their desire to win.
You describe your preference as if it is a universal law. Atleast I describe my paradigm simply as one preference one might adopt or not - not a law of the universe.
Gareth, either own your paradigm and realise it's just what you've chosen or be honest and come out saying "Callan, I know how the universe works, at it's very foundations, and it what I say is built into that very foundation! Yours is just a made up paradigm that has nothing to do with the universe and how it works." Don't pussy foot around, if you think your in on the one way the universe works you aught to be proud enough to proclaim it. Loudly. C'mon, don't give me another 'that's not what I'm saying' line - I can feel it coming so it's lost it's bite already. You absolutely think your right - not in a 'I'm right that team X will win this sports event' way, but in a 'this is the utter truth of the world' way. Surely when you know it that certainly, theres nothing wrong in you saying such is the case?
For anyone else reading, how do you discuss differing paradigms of evaluation, when one person acts as if their paradigm is a universal rule, like physics? I do not know. If it seems I'm just bobbing out without really 'addressing the issues', it's not issues but scripture being brought up. I can feel the shadow of ModRon hovering over us, anyway. And even my inner mod kinda agrees with that.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page