Game Goals

[Le Joueur]

i]of my own<thought<never<my opinion<quite true.

Then you went on about "implicit goals," which I thought spoke for<of my opinion<added to game theory when approaching role-playing game design?  By the post after that, I certainly was<everything<can stand to have my opinion challenged; yet you have not once made any attempt on the basis of my idea.  All you have done is denounce it in favor of a contrast.  Still, when your opinion<could not be thought of as toys at all.  (While I do not stand on the point of them being strictly toys as opposed to anything else, I know that its impossible to prove that they are not everything else.)  That would at least call my theory into question as opposed to simply, blindly denouncing it.

(For those of you who have stuck it out to this point, let me apologize for the tone I have taken here.  It has been a very hard fortnight for us at Impswitch and I really do appreciate the opportunity to vent some rather unpleasant emotions in such a civilized atmosphere.  I realize I have sunk a bit lower than ever, but I hope you can forgive my passions.  I always think very fondly of all of the members of the forum and the things I have learned here as well as what I have learned because of these experiences.  Thank you for your time and kind attention.)

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-11-01 19:37 ]of my othought<never<my opinion<quite true.

Then you went on about "implicit goals," which I thought spoke for<of my opinion<added to game theory when approaching role-playing game design?  By the post after that, I certainly was<everything<can stand to have my opinion challenged; yet you have not once made any attempt on the basis of my idea.  All you have done is denounce it in favor of a contrast.  Still, when your opinion<could not be thought of as toys at all.  (While I do not stand on the point of them being strictly toys as opposed to anything else, I know that its impossible to prove that they are not everything else.)  That would at least call my theory into question as opposed to simply, blindly denouncing it.

(For those of you who have stuck it out to this point, let me apologize for the tone I have taken here.  It has been a very hard fortnight for us at Impswitch and I really do appreciate the opportunity to vent some rather unpleasant emotions in such a civilized atmosphere.  I realize I have sunk a bit lower than ever, but I hope you can forgive my passions.  I always think very fondly of all of the members of the forum and the things I have learned here as well as what I have learned because of these experiences.  Thank you for your time and kind attention.)

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-11-01 19:37 ]

[contracycle]

Well, its true to say that most people who know me would probably describe me as rather abrasive and confrontational; its the nature of this particular beast.  There is also a tendency for text conversations to flatten tone and aggravate contentious issues.  

Some of this arises from an impatience with that old saw of sitcom TV - "I only did what I thought was right".  Not good enough; you have to do what IS right.  Accordingly, the fact that something is "an opinion" is no excuse, as any opinion should at least be formed by constructive analysis.  This means that I have an expectation that anyone advancing an opinion would and should be able to defend it.  To merely exchange some stolid statements of how we think the world works achieves nothing; progress arises through the thrashing of these differences until the wheat is separated from the chaff.

Stating that something is an opinion does not exempt it from critical analysis.  Insisting that an opinion be shielded from criticism suggests a certain unwillingness to have the concept challenged at all, whether by good reasons or bad.  Sometimes, people appear to employ such devices for lunatic or larcenous purposes, and I think it is reasonable to be suspicious of the request for such special protection.

[Le Joueur]

Surprisingly, I completely agree with you (except for what you imply without saying).

contracycle wrote:

...you have to do what IS right.  Accordingly, the fact that something is "an opinion" is no excuse, as any opinion should at least be formed by constructive analysis.Quote

This means that I have an expectation that anyone advancing an opinion would and should be able to defend it.

This is also true, but against what can I defend?  You continually dismiss any argument by saying that everything is a game.  That is both condescending and does not even challenge the core idea that role-playing games might be more than just games or even that they might be more something else<too<

To merely exchange some stolid statements of how we think the world works achieves nothing;

Okay, this I disagree with.  I believe it allows us to agree to disagree.  You confuse interpretations with facts when you subscribe to the idea that if one is right all others are wrong.  This is what is called a difference of opinion.  And since you did not seem interested in describing why role-playing games could not be toys, I thought we had reached such an impasse.  This does not mean either of us is wrong, simply that we disagree.  I cannot fathom why you have made this an attack on my character.

progress arises through the thrashing of these differences until the wheat is separated from the chaff.Perhaps you could try it.<

Stating that something is an opinion does not exempt it from critical analysis.

Of course this is correct.  But you have yet to actually criticize the opinion, instead you simply announce a narrower view and support that.  That is not criticism; that is not even analysis.  That is attempting to force me to disprove what I already accept as a part of my ideas.  Potentially, this is a clever way to cause me to waste my time looking like a fool contradicting myself.  Except your denouncement of my idea is not under analysis here.

Insisting that an opinion be shielded from criticism suggests a certain unwillingness to have the concept challenged at all, whether by good reasons or bad.

An interesting characterization that, alone, is true, but has nothing to do with my stand.  I am unwilling to have my idea dealt with by simply having is called "untrue."  If you would care to take a moment to criticize my idea instead of looking for ways to prove that everything is a game, you might see me respond to a challenge; but if you insist instead to attack my character as being "unwilling to be challenged" without making the challenge yourself, you will be guilty of attacking the person and not the idea.

The only thing I have insisted is that having an opinion different from yours should be shielded from character assassination.

Sometimes, people appear to employ such devices for lunatic or larcenous purposes, and I think it is reasonable to be suspicious of the request for such special protection.

Also true, except nowhere have I ever shrunk from a challenge to the idea.  It is you, sir, who turns this from a discussion of whether there is merit in considering role-playing games as toys as well as games, to an attack upon my character, indirectly suggesting that I am turning from a challenge.

I would have taken this to a private venue long ago were it not for these ever-increasing attacks on my character.  A problem with my theories could have been cleared up quickly, long ago, were it not for your practice of simple denial of my points (as opposed to thoughtful analysis or critique) and even then in private.  While I have little interest in bringing the whole forum into this attack on my character, I can hardly shrink from it even as I would not a credible challenge to my ideas.

And again, I must apologize for this turn of discussion and thank everyone reading for allowing me to defend myself against these attacks (whereas I would much rather defend my ideas against thoughtful challenge).

Now it is my turn to suggest that you<me, try substantiating a discussion that my idea has flaws in it.  Instead of just stating that it is wrong, do what is right, show<as well.)

Fang Langford

[ This Message was edited by: Le Joueur on 2001-11-03 01:20 ]

[Daredevil]

I basically agree with Fang's view on roleplaying games being more like toys than games per se. I haven't formulated a fully fledged view yet, but to start with I'll say I agree with him.

The evidence is there to support the view.

Every player can have different goals in playing a roleplaying game - that's a given. More or less you can say the players create their own goals, although influenced by the game, fellow players and gamemaster. It is a shared medium in almost every instance.

Though there can be argued to be bad players (that is beyond the scope of this discussion, though), one can't say that having different goals in roleplaying makes certain groups of people bad players. Whether one is a bad player or not is not really dependant on this.

I can definately agree with the idea that roleplaying games are like balls, that by their inherent nature suggest certain types of behaviour (you don't write poems with balls, obviosly, but you can play a variety of games). They're complex "balls" and the activity which follows is usually equally complex. Different games, just like balls (soccer balls, rugby balls, tennis balls), favor certain types of activity. Now, I want to end the comparison and return to the point.

Roleplaying games are what you make of them, even more so than most things (since I'd argue that everything is what you make of it - heh). I think everything in this forum, the GNS paradigm and all else pretty much just supports the view.

Thanks for the bandwidth guys.