*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
July 29, 2014, 02:46:52 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
46709 Posts in 5588 Topics by 13297 Members Latest Member: - Shane786 Most online today: 30 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Print
Author Topic: [D&D4E] Some WOTC encounters  (Read 6851 times)
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 4268


WWW
« Reply #45 on: August 10, 2011, 01:53:07 AM »

Quote
Quote
But if I'm reading right, you don't - both A and B and everyone else chooses by the method you describe.

Nonsense.  I said nothing of the sort, and nothing that even be contstrued as saying that.
I was stuck - if I assumed your just describing a player A and B (who both seem identical, so I don't know why there is an A and B) as choosing a certain way - I don't understand how this says anything in particular about the method of game engagement I'm describing? That interpretation seemed pointless. Some people do what A and B do...okay? Is there a third interpretation I missed - charitably I skipped the seemingly pointless one. Alot of regular debaters would just latch onto the worst interpretation they could find and flog that.

Quote
But if you are willing to acknowledge that people do actually have content preferences, than I suggest again that describing all conflicts over content as originating from "scrub players" is self-evidently mistaken.
If it's intended to be played to win, then it's not mistaken. If it's meant as a themepark sort of game, I wouldn't bring up the play to win thing as it's not actually part of the design.

Quote
But what if he is? Can you give an example of someone playing a game (in the context of this discussion) who does it without interest in the activities comprising that game?
Ok, comprising, not compromising. My mistake.

Your simplyfying things a bit. Someone with a nar interest, for example, could enjoy narrativism first, but as a secondary desire enjoy strategic sword moves. So they might play riddle of steel. The important thing is is that if they miss out on the secondary desire because of the first, that's okay because first comes...well, first!

Okay, play to win. You want to play to win as first priority, but as a secondary desire, maybe you like X. You sign up for a game with the first priority in mind and that has X. But then maybe you miss out on X. Shock! Horror! But no, it's fine if the first priority is being met. There is no problem.

As far as I can tell this is different from what Gareth is describing to me, which is people who, first and foremost, signed up for X but then miss out on it because of how others play.
Logged

Anders Gabrielsson
Member

Posts: 100


« Reply #46 on: August 10, 2011, 03:04:14 AM »

Callan, I'm not sure I understand your position correctly so I'm going to ask a couple of questions to see if I can make sense of it. This is not meant as a provocation or an attack on your position; I'm just trying to figure out what you're saying to see if I can bring the discussion forward.

1) If a game has explicit winning conditions, do you think anyone is justified in playing to win by any means within the rules as written even if the (whole) group of players have explicitly added other restrictions? What if the restrictions are implicit?

2) Do you think winning conditions added by the group of players but not present in the text has any value? If not, in what way are they different from the ones in the text? Specifically, if a player is introduced to the game without himself having read the rules and everyone else in the group is playing with the added winning conditions, is his experience any different from that of a player who has read a version of the rules where those winning conditions are present?
Logged
contracycle
Member

Posts: 2984


« Reply #47 on: August 10, 2011, 07:15:56 AM »

If it's intended to be played to win, then it's not mistaken. If it's meant as a themepark sort of game, I wouldn't bring up the play to win thing as it's not actually part of the design.

Yes, it is mistaken, because the content is a separate and different issue to playing competitively.  Right?  One doesn't imply anything about the other.

Quote
As far as I can tell this is different from what Gareth is describing to me, which is people who, first and foremost, signed up for X but then miss out on it because of how others play.

No, I'm saying they are orthogonal, that they are not ordered in a priority, that they occur simultaneously.
Logged

http://www.arrestblair.org/

"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 4268


WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 10, 2011, 10:02:10 AM »

Quote
1) If a game has explicit winning conditions, do you think anyone is justified in playing to win by any means within the rules as written even if the (whole) group of players have explicitly added other restrictions? What if the restrictions are implicit?
First I'll add a note about semantically vague wording (weasel words). This is wording, which, if you ran a survey and showed them to a thousand people, you would not get the same interpretation each time, or even over 95% of the survey.

Anyway, assuming the restrictions aren't those, this new restrictions simply make a new game and are as the maker of this new game intended it to have. In other words, these rules become the 'the rules as written'. And so anyone is justified in playing to win by any means within the rules as written, as before. Unless weve just simply given up on playing to win for some reason.

If the rules are implicit? That could either be weasel wording, or it could be so clear cut (ie, 1000 readings, 1 interpretation) and identical in each head that it may as well be a written rule. It's certainly written into their heads. So with the latter, why bother calling it implicit (except if you bring in a new member and, while you can remember these rules when they come up, you can't remember them in serial form to inform them in advance of when they come up - then that's a prob)

Quote
2) Do you think winning conditions added by the group of players but not present in the text has any value? If not, in what way are they different from the ones in the text?
If you came to play game X and it's winning conditions, then clearly the difference is your not doing what you set out to do.

If you don't really give a stuff, it doesn't make much difference. But I think people who don't give a stuff generally don't do much at a table, either.

Quote
Specifically, if a player is introduced to the game without himself having read the rules and everyone else in the group is playing with the added winning conditions, is his experience any different from that of a player who has read a version of the rules where those winning conditions are present?
I'm not sure if above you meant adding extra winning conditions?

My problem in the thread has been that there are no initial winning conditions to begin with? Not having some win conditions built in already and then adding more on top.

Anyway, with your example, it depends if they start treating their added win conditions as more important than the ones in the game. If so they have ceased playing the game and invented a new one and are playing that, while denying to themselves (and especially to the clueless newbie) that they have. It gets rather complicated.


Gareth,
Quote
Yes, it is mistaken, because the content is a separate and different issue to playing competitively.  Right?  One doesn't imply anything about the other.
Not at all. Play to win does even more than imply, it points it's finger at content and in the voice of god says the content comes second. Indeed I think Sirlin even wrote an article about playing streetfighter, but hypothesizing a version just using bounding boxes - no graphics at all. To really consider distilling it right down.

Quote
No, I'm saying they are orthogonal, that they are not ordered in a priority, that they occur simultaneously.
Well, for your A and B, maybe they do? By and large?
Logged

contracycle
Member

Posts: 2984


« Reply #49 on: August 10, 2011, 10:55:15 AM »

Not at all. Play to win does even more than imply, it points it's finger at content and in the voice of god says the content comes second. Indeed I think Sirlin even wrote an article about playing streetfighter, but hypothesizing a version just using bounding boxes - no graphics at all. To really consider distilling it right down.

No, because as I have pointed out, that doesn't explain why people choose streetfighter over space invaders or vice versa.

Quote
Well, for your A and B, maybe they do? By and large?

For everyone.  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. 
Logged

http://www.arrestblair.org/

"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
Anders Gabrielsson
Member

Posts: 100


« Reply #50 on: August 10, 2011, 11:53:15 AM »

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?
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 4268


WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 10, 2011, 05:07:28 PM »

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.
Logged

Anders Gabrielsson
Member

Posts: 100


« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2011, 11:13:22 PM »

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.
Logged
contracycle
Member

Posts: 2984


« Reply #53 on: August 11, 2011, 03:28:13 AM »

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.
Logged

http://www.arrestblair.org/

"He who loves practice without theory is like the sailor who boards ship without a rudder and compass and never knows where he may cast."
- Leonardo da Vinci
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 4268


WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 11, 2011, 07:46:35 PM »

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.
Logged

Anders Gabrielsson
Member

Posts: 100


« Reply #55 on: August 11, 2011, 09:48:51 PM »

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?
Oh come on, there's no need for this kind of provocative hyperbole. The only reason for you to go on like this is if you're trying to provoke a response that will force Ron to step in. If you can't read the unstated "in my opinion" in this kind of discussion you're just trying to make trouble.
Logged
Callan S.
Member

Posts: 4268


WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 11, 2011, 11:41:54 PM »

Just use the report button, Anders. It's fine to do so.
Logged

Anders Gabrielsson
Member

Posts: 100


« Reply #57 on: August 12, 2011, 01:03:44 AM »

Just use the report button, Anders. It's fine to do so.
But trying to talk to you like a person isn't?
Logged
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 17707


WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 12, 2011, 03:55:30 AM »

Well, time to close it. There are some neat bits in here to mine if people want to dig.

It went off the rails as soon as actual play ceased to be discussed.

Best, Ron
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.16 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!