Capes play and judgementalism in general

[Sindyr]

OK, I think I have found a clearer, more analytical way to express the problem here.

There are several questions one could ask vis-à-vis Capes, such as:
1.   What are the official rules?
2.   Why did Tony use rule X in making the game instead of rule Y?
3.   What would be the effect of adding house rule Z be?
4.   Would that effect be desirable?
5.   Should someone be judged, disparaged, denounced, or scorned based on their answer to the above question?

I think that we should be vigorously discussing and debating  the first four questions.

I think that anyone who answers yes to the fifth is no longer talking about how to use Capes to have recreational fun, he is talking about how superior he is to those he judges.

Discussing why the answer to the fifth question is yes is inappropriate I feel to these forums.  If I were the moderator I would not permit it, as I feel that it is entirely off topic.

But if it were to be discussed, I would say that anyone who answers yes to the fifth question:

• is judgmental and intolerant
• has personality issues
• has an Agenda beyond helping people use Capes to have fun, namely trying to get his philosophy into other peoples' heads
• is not permitting Capes to be used purely for recreation

Bottom line: when the subject of house rules and other mods come up, one should feel free to say that house rule Z will not have the effect you think it will, or that house rule Z causes an effect that I prefer to not partake of in Capes.

One should never say, "It is the mark of a child."  One should never disparage someone for playing the game differently.  One should never put someone down because what is fun in Capes for them is different.

That statement is not about Capes.  It's about how superior one feels onself to be for how one chooses to play Capes.

I don't know if Tony, as the moderator of this forum, will take a stand against this sort of thing.  He seems to me to be one of the main perpetrators, so I think it may be unlikely.

But whoever is reading this, if we can keep our discussions about questions 1-4, and simply refuse to attack each other with question 5, then I think the forum will become both more pleasant and more functional.

The only attacks that make sense to me are on those who have already attacked and continue to attack us by answering "yes" to question 5.  Then it's just a matter of self-defense.

Thanks.

[Tuxboy]

There are several questions one could ask vis-à-vis Capes, such as:
1. What are the official rules?
2. Why did Tony use rule X in making the game instead of rule Y?
3. What would be the effect of adding house rule Z be?
4. Would that effect be desirable?

These questions miss out a couple of important points:

3a. What is the justification behind introducing house rule Z?
3b. Is house rule Z required to produce the effect?

Changes could effect the gaming experience, so I like to know the reasoning behind a proposed change so it can be discussed openly and without assumptions, which even with the best intentions can cause issues if the assumption is incorrect.

[Sindyr]

There are several questions one could ask vis-à-vis Capes, such as:
1. What are the official rules?
2. Why did Tony use rule X in making the game instead of rule Y?
3. What would be the effect of adding house rule Z be?
4. Would that effect be desirable?

These questions miss out a couple of important points:

3a. What is the justification behind introducing house rule Z?
3b. Is house rule Z required to produce the effect?

Changes could effect the gaming experience, so I like to know the reasoning behind a proposed change so it can be discussed openly and without assumptions, which even with the best intentions can cause issues if the assumption is incorrect.

Let me amend my original list:
1. What are the official rules?
2. Why did Tony use rule X in making the game instead of rule Y?
3. What would be the effect of adding house rule Z be?
3a. What is the purpose or goal behind introducing house rule Z?
3b. Is house rule Z required to produce the effect?
4. Would that effect be desirable?

The only thing I would suggest is asking what is the purpose or goal behind introducing house rule Z, as opposed to the justification, as asking for justifications can slide into a my way good your way bad sort of thing that runs smack into a type 5 question.

By asking for purposes, we are free to value whether achieving that purpose of goal is worthwhile to us, without tell someone else that it is not worthwhile to them.  We can, however, discuss whether or not it achieves the stated purpose or goal.  We simply do not tell someone else that their goal or purpose is bad in and of itself, just that it will have certain effects.  If those effects are desirable to them, then we would *want* them to use house rule Z - even if we ourselves would do no such thing.

[greyorm]

I will be the first to note you have restated exactly what you said in the other thread, Sindyr, and have still failed to indicate you understand any of the criticisms levelled at this response over there. Yes, people should not blindly attack other people's fun. No one is arguing that with you.

They are arguing against the claim that everyone is just defending their fun, when that is not the case, and that all criticism of such disguised behaviors is judgmental, intolerant or unnecessary. Simply, you are still attacking something Tony did not argue, and still defending an untenable position (because you claim you have the moral high ground when you do not; in its current form, your argument is unfalsifiable and thus no ground of any sort except shiftable).

[Sindyr]

I will be the first to note you have restated exactly what you said in the other thread, Sindyr, and have still failed to indicate you understand any of the criticisms levelled at this response over there. Yes, people should not blindly attack other people's fun. No one is arguing that with you.

They are arguing against the claim that everyone is just defending their fun, when that is not the case, and that all criticism of such disguised behaviors is judgmental, intolerant or unnecessary. Simply, you are still attacking something Tony did not argue, and still defending an untenable position (because you claim you have the moral high ground when you do not; in its current form, your argument is unfalsifiable and thus no ground of any sort except shiftable).

You are making no sense.

Fact: Tony disparaged those who choose to play capes with an authoship rule.
Fact: Tony grounds were not that authorhsip players wouldn't be having fun.  His grounds were that they would be embracing weakness.
Fact: That runs smack dab middle center of rule 5.

Tony has an agenda that goes far beyond helping people have fun playing Capes.  He want to impart his philosophy of what choices are "right" onto his players.

As a player of Capes, I do not care what choices Tony feels are "right" for me.  All I care about is using Capes and whatever mods make sense to me to have some fun.  I doubt I am alone in that.

Tony seems to have an issue with prioritizing the goal of fun in Capes. (In that if I use Capes in a way that is fun, but Tony does not like (like the authoship rule) then I should apparently play differently.)  I have in issue with not prioritizing fun.

What don't you get?

[Tuxboy]

The only thing I would suggest is asking what is the purpose or goal behind introducing house rule Z, as opposed to the justification, as asking for justifications can slide into a my way good your way bad sort of thing that runs smack into a type 5 question.

I think we need to get past the assumption that asking for a reason is an attack on the proposed position or we simply are not going to get anywhere.

Purpose and justification are different things. Lets just replace both questions with:

Why is house rule Z required to produce the effect?

We can, however, discuss whether or not it achieves the stated purpose or goal.  We simply do not tell someone else that their goal or purpose is bad in and of itself, just that it will have certain effects.  If those effects are desirable to them, then we would *want* them to use house rule Z - even if we ourselves would do no such thing.

Hardly a discussion under those circumstances though is it?

Will X do Y?
Yes
Will Q do Z?
No

Extremely unfulfilling as discussions go...

Without knowing the reasoning behind the proposed change, I would have no reason to pass comment on the change as it could just be pointless tinkering for tinkering's sake, and I'm sorry but I do have better things to do with my time if that's the case, and I suspect many other posters would feel the same.

As in Capes you need to engage our interest...

[TonyLB]

Sindyr:  You want us to respect your right to hold your opinions.  We do.  Nobody is telling you not to hold your opinions.  Indeed, people are asking you to hold them more forcefully, and to defend them.

You want us to respect your right to play the game according to your opinons.  We do.  Nobody is telling you that you can't play the game that way.  Indeed, people are asking you about the details of how such play worked out.

You want us to respect your opinions, whether sensible or silly, just as much as we respect any other opinion just because you are a human being and you hold the opinion.  We do NOT, nor do you have any right to expect that of us.

If you put forth an idea which I think is stupid and misguided I am not obligated to treat it as enlightened wisdom.  I can (and will) look at it and say "Man, that's stupid and misguided."

Your recourse to that is not to say "Tony's thinks my idea is stupid!  That inherently means he must be wrong!"  On the contrary, if the idea is stupid it would sort of be natural for me to hold that opinion, wouldn't it?  Bitching and moaning about how judgmental I'm being will do precisely zero towards making me respect your idea ... and it's only "zero," rather than "negative" because I'm a very patient person.

Your recourse, if you really, really need me to respect your idea, is to earn it by making an argument for your idea that convinces me.  Nothing else is going to work.

Not only will I not take a stand against being judgmental regarding people's ideas, I will go on record right here and now taking a stand for being judgmental.  I want people to judge each other's opinions, to weigh them and consider them, and if they find them wanting to say so.  I firmly believe that it will lead to more productive and polite discourse.

[drnuncheon]

I think that anyone who answers yes to the fifth is no longer talking about how to use Capes to have recreational fun, he is talking about how superior he is to those he judges.

I think you've got an entire post here talking about how you are superior to the people you are judging.

J

[Sindyr]

Well, thank goodness I am made of stronger stuff - if not a single reader can see or embrace what I am positing, I will not wilt and die.  I will be disappointed in some folks, but I do not fear being in the minority - I am quite used to it.  I almost see it as a badge of courage and intelligence.  Almost.

Anyways, at least I have put out there some good stuff.  What other people take from it is out of my hands.

Plus, now I have a way to escape being drawn into Type 5 questions which sap lost of energy and are not helpful to me as I investigate matters of the other types (1-4).

I will throw out one more morsel, not because I think it will succeed where all my efforts in the past haven't, but because it just occurred to me.

I created an authorship mod. We employed it in our game.  Everyone was happy, and everyone had fun.

If a group of like-minded people want to play a variant of Capes that includes this rule, and if they are relatively certain that playing with this variant will be much more fun than playing without it, then in what way is anyone entitled to fault these players for so doing?  In what way is anyone entitled to claim that their own style of play is in anyway superior to the way my group plays?

I can only assume that whatever reason, damage, or blindness that caused all my previous efforts to fail will block this latest attempt at evoking clarity.

[Sindyr]

I think that anyone who answers yes to the fifth is no longer talking about how to use Capes to have recreational fun, he is talking about how superior he is to those he judges.

I think you've got an entire post here talking about how you are superior to the people you are judging.

J

As I said, I believe it wrong to judge people for playing capes in a way that works for them.

I feel it necessary to judge people for putting down people for choosing to play Capes in a certain way.

An analogy:  It is wrong to use physical force to bully people.  It is unfotunately necessary to use physcial force to prevent bullies from using their physical force on others.

Don't miss the significant difference from refusing to judge people for what they find find, and being entirely willing to judge people for being intolerant of different play styles and goals.  Apples and oranges - or more accurately, apples and televisions.

To believe otherwise would be to say we are not allowed to use force, even when defending ourselves from an attack.

I am not saying that one should never be judgemental under any circumstances - far from it.
I am saying that one should not be judgemental about each of us being allowed - nay, encouraged - to find out what works for us and to employ that when it comes to recreational gaming.

I hope that is clear.  If you cannot see the difference, than I cannot help you.

[Sindyr]

Not only will I not take a stand against being judgmental regarding people's ideas, I will go on record right here and now taking a stand for being judgmental.  I want people to judge each other's opinions, to weigh them and consider them, and if they find them wanting to say so.  I firmly believe that it will lead to more productive and polite discourse.

You are not judging their ideas, Tony.  You are judging their taste.

If Capes is ice cream, than straight up Capes is Vanilla.  Here I come along and mix bubblegum into it, creating Bubblegum flavored Capes.

You are trying to tell someone that likes a flavor that you don't, they shouldn't go after that flavor. 

Every variant has one or more effects.

You can debate about what those effects are. You can debate if the variant is the best way to accomplish the desired change.  You can even speak about your opinion about what a Capes game under those effects would be like, and how much or how little you think you would like it.

But to fault someone else for finding more reward, more fun, in Bubblegum flavored Capes is not an idealogical debate.  It's sneering at them for liking Bubblegum.

And I just can't respect that.

[Sindyr]

Purpose and justification are different things. Lets just replace both questions with:

Why is house rule Z required to produce the effect?

That works for me, more or less.  We do need to be aware that the question may boil down to a matter of taste, which is not debatable.  The parts that are debatable are: what are we trying to change or accomplish?  What is the best way to do that?

I guess I just want to be careful, again, not to blindly run into a Type 5 situation. Once the ramifications of a variant are understood, one can ask is those ramifications accomplish the goal.  But we can't really argue against the goal itself, except to say that we ourselves may not enjoy that style of play, that it doesn't suit our taste.  We must stop short of saying that it shouldn't suit theirs either - because that is a Type 5 error.

So I guess that as long as "Why is house rule Z required to produce the effect?" does not devolve into "Why are you trying to make the game work this way, that is wrong no matter how well that meets your needs" than I agree.

[Andrew Cooper]

Actually, Sindyr, he hasn't said that at all.  At least I can't find it anywhere in his recent posts.  In fact, he's actually refuted what you claim he's said.

And, just to be clear:  I have no objections to people who know that they can play inviolate or vulnerable and choose to play inviolate for whatever reason.  If you know that the magic feather is just a feather, but it's a jaunty feather, who's gonna object?  I got no objection to a spiffy looking feather, just to the delusional reliance on it.

He has said clearly and sucinctly that his objection is to people who believe that you must have inviolate characters in order to role-play effective or in a fun manner.  He hasn't said a thing about people who understand that both ways to play can be fun and effective and then choose to play inviolate characters because they like it more.

You're arguing against something he never said.  That's a logical fallacy.  Somewhere in there, you misread/misinterpreted a point Tony was making and you've jumped on a soapbox ranting against his eeeeeeeevil position.  That fact that he hasn't taken said position seems to have escaped you.  Either that or you have your own agenda and are being intellectually dishonest in trying to pursue it.

If you've played Capes as written and said, "Cool.  That works but I think I'd like it better if we added some more constraints."  Then no one here is going to jump on you about it.  It's the statement, "Capes is broken because there's no Authorship Rule." that we will argue against.  (I'm not saying that you've said this.  It is provided as an example.)

[drnuncheon]

Sindyr: here's the situation from the other side.  Since you like analogies and all.

Tony's made us a mighty fine exercise bike.  It's got a TV screen on it that shows a simulated road, some nice scenery, and t's got some wicked hills that really make you work.  We're all pedaling along.

You come along. "Hey, this exercise bike, it's great, but this place where you can choose whether to turn left or right?  The left road is better, so why wouldn't you always choose that?  Aren't you worried about people going in circles all night?"

"Well, you might want a change of scenery, or a different route..."

"But if the other route is better, why wouldn't you choose it?  And look here - someone might fall off of the seat and hurt themselves. It should have a seat belt to protect them."

We all look at each other.  Nobody's ever fallen off, and if they're likely to spontaneously fall off of an exercise bike then maybe they shouldn't be riding one in the first place.

"And I'm worried I might strain a muscle on it.  Why don't we take out the part where it gets tougher to pedal when you're going uphill?"

"That's just weak.  You're never going to get any exercise that way."

"Don't be judgemental!"

J

[Sindyr]

You're arguing against something he never said.

From the horse's mouth:

But, really, who cares?  Because there are two cases where I can hold all other factors equal:  Myself before I try to play vulnerable characters and myself after I try it.  If we assume that my skill at playing inviolate characters stays exactly the same (again, a point that might merit debate) then I am a better roleplayer after expanding my horizons than I was before doing so.  I've improved.

So I worry that you're missing a crucial point here:  I'm not saying that, if you cling to the notion of inviolate characters, you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with me.  I'm saying that you'll be an inferior roleplayer when compared with what you could be.

My response:

I think that the crux of the mistake that I perceive you to be making.  Inferior is the wrong word, with entirely the wrong denotations and connotations.

Is someone who can play golf well inferior to some who can play golf *and* tennis well?  Of course not.  Perhaps if they were to play tennis badly, then you could say that their tennis skill was inferior, but you certainly can't say that they as a person are inferior.

Perhaps if we just adjust the language to something more appropriate we will come to a meeting of the minds.  Any of the below I find acceptable and probably true:

If I do not enjoy playing Capes without inviolate characters, my ability to play Capes will not be as versatile as if I did.
-or-
If I do not play Capes without inviolate characters, I will not have experienced as much of Capes as a could have.
-or-
If I do not enjoy playing Capes without inviolate characters, I will not be find as many kinds of fulfillment in Capes as if I did.

If any one of those three things are your point, then I understand, and agree.

But I don't consider someone an inferior sportsman just because he plays fewer games than he could.  Narrowly focused does not equate to inferior, and widely focused doesn't not equate to superior.

It only equates to versatility.

Are we on the same page now?