[d&d4e] Puzzles in RPGs

[otspiii]

When I debate, I debate from a platform.  I don't even necessarily believe in some of the things I've said as anything more than theories, but when I debate I throw them up there anyway as assertions in the hope that people will bring attention to their flaws.  The way that I really feel about design is that you need to be able to see things from as many perspectives as possible, and that every one of these perspectives should be as tightened and refined as possible.  That's not a position I can argue from, though, so I just pick the perspective that I think will both be pressured by and put pressure on the viewpoint at hand.

It's frustrating when your defense just becomes "Well, you're just not open minded enough," because that in no way helps me understand the strengths of your position.  If you think my assertions aren't correct then call their weak spots out, or defend yours, don't just cry that I'm making assertions.  In the end, usually, both assertions will stand, but they'll both be better understood and will have had some of their weak points removed.  Trust me, I'm way more interested in the ways your assertions don't work within their own framework than in how my perspective overrides yours.

You seem very quick to try to assign people who disagree with you to various defective thinking methods.  Are you sure you aren't falling into some of your own traps?

[Ron Edwards]

It's time to close the thread. The points have been made, and now the discussion is turning into what-I-meant and why-I-said-it, without much content beyond defending those secondary or even tertiary levels of the conversation.

Norm, if you want the thread to continue, contact me by private message. Otherwise, everyone, it's time to put this one to bed, with no more posts.

Many thanks, Ron