Inherent to every game is some sort of goal or goals. They may not all be necessary, or may be equally important, but the goals often dictate how the game works and how it is approached. In chess, it is to defeat your opponent, while in double dutch, its to jump rope with style.
If we take the goal of beating up monsters, obviously the most important parts of the game will be the rules on combat, getting stronger, and getting things to help you beat up monsters. If we take the goal of telling a good story, we need to define what is going into this good story. Telling the story of a single hero, the reunification of a nation, the dying honor of a caste, the saga of a family history, and the tales of a civilization falling into doom are all different types of stories.
As many games attempt to be all things to all people, I find that many narrativist games likewise fail to define what scale of story they are trying to convey. Obviously most of this is defined when the campaign starts, but what people have in mind as the "story" of their character may be very different.
One person may be looking for redemption, another to restore their family, a third to solve mysteries, meanwhile the GM is also trying to tell a story. The problem that anyone with Director stance has is that they are trying to tell their story, but so likewise is everyone else.
Not only is it hard to mesh these different stories, even more so when each player is given more power to control the story, but also its hard to match the rhythm of escalation/climax/resolution. The problem lies in a basic question: Are we trying to compete for storyline control or are we trying to compromise for everyone and can we tell a good story while doing it?
Some in game mechanics do not match the goals they are intended for: A more powerful character does not entail a better story. Obviously every player wants to have their character fufill their "destiny" that sits in the player's mind while creating them(even if it is as simple as reaching 10th level, seeing Cthulu at least once before dying, etc.), so no matter the game, that is definitely an inherent goal in all rpgs.
My question is: has anyone looked at this idea of the player's imagined storyline as a goal? Or necessarily the means of creating it as part of the mechanics, more than a short author role specific to a character? When we speak of shared authorship, is there any rules to make it cooperative instead of competitive, or any rules to taylor it one way as opposed to the other?

Perhaps this is too vague, but its some ideas that have been rolling around in my head.

Bankuei

Yeah, this was much like the thought I had in the Player Character Premises thread. I definatley think there is a tacit "character destiny" effect at work, and furthermore I think that trying to meet those goals, consciously or otherwise, reqcuires a way to knit, synthesize, these into one coherent whole which is itself the narrative.

Bankuei wrote:

Inherent to every game is some sort of goal or goals. They may not all be necessary, or may be equally important, but the goals often dictate how the game works and how it is approached.

Obviously every player wants to have their character fulfill their "destiny" that sits in the player's mind while creating them, so no matter the game, that is definitely an inherent goal in all [role-playing games].

I think that games that may not necessarily have an obvious goal or winning scenario still have goals. At a basic level, you could say that the basic goal of many roleplaying games is to be able to keep playing(not die, reach oblivion, lose one's mind, etc.) In a game without any chance of death(chinese checkers) there is no rules for it, so that cannot be the goal of the game.
While you could use GURPS as a tool, it is not conducive to playing narrativist games. Story is not the goal of the game as much as simulation, and simulation of a character, not of a group, or a movement.
All balls roll, some bounce, and most can be thrown. Any game with certain goals can use a ball as a tool(we need something we can kick that rolls) to make the game work. You cannot play stacking games with a ball. Jenga will not work with a set of balls, even if magnetic.

Rpg's have much more open sets of goals than most games, but lets say at least these goals are commmon in most: Continued play, character growth, storytelling, acheiving story goals.

Would you say there's a game that doesn't include at least one of these?

Bankuei,

Unfortunately, I think your list ("Continued play, character growth, storytelling, acheiving story goals") is sufficiently interpretable to cover just about any human activity, and therefore cannot be meaningfully applied to role-playing as a distinct thing.

My GNS essay is basically about this whole issue: in my opinion, role-playing is a leisure, entertainment activity ("to have fun"). The further, specified versions of fun are articulated as the GNS modes.

I think that things like "storytelling" (in its various forms) are distributed non-randomly acrosss the GNS modes and their sub-types, in very sensible ways. To say that "storytelling" or "continued play" are BY DEFINITION role-playing goals is over-stating, in my opinion. I consider that to be synecdoche, as described in the essay.

However, I think that your first post in this thread asks a lot of excellent questions about techniques and game designs for CERTAIN (not definitive) role-playing goals. Addressing that is a big issue for me.

Best,
Ron

Bankuei,

If I might, I think that the idea of Narrativist play is to allow players the opportunity to create stories that are as individual or intertwined as one likes. If I can play a cooperative Gamist game as Gareth would assert (and with which I agree, conditionally), then why is it that I must compete in telling a story? That is a bad assumption. I have personally played in games where players lessen their own character's roles in order to enhance the entire story. Just as players in a gamist game might sacrifice their character's HP in order to come out ahead.

If you want cooperation amongst the players in acomplishing your GNS goal, there are mechanical ways to make this occur. In Gamist games, you can make team up attacks more powerful than single attacks, for example. In a Narrativist game you can require that all the players take the same goal as their primary goal (leaving other stuff as sub-plots).

If you want player competition make up rules like RUNE. If you want player collaboration, make up a game that requires common goals.

What's the problem?

Mike

I think perhaps "problem" was not the word I intended. I fully understand that many games are cooperative or competitive based on the players ability to work together or compete. I guess the question is better phrased as,"Are certain games goals to create a cooperative story, but instead have competitive mechanics, or vice versa? If so, why?" We can really look at all rules and mechanics as a system of story control("Did I succeed? By how much? Who can say what happens?").

What games are better at creating cooperative stories, some competitive, simply by their mechanics and why? Just as important, if the goal is to tell story, why are the mechanics not focused around the story, and what mechanics can create a good story(if mechanics indeed can)?

I guess its hard to narrow it down to a solid question at the moment, its fairly nebulous and large in my mind. It struck me while looking at Story Engine, Theatrix, and the Pool that while the goal is story, that most of the rewards come in improvements to your character's growth, and many of the mechanics are based off the character in game value of stats instead of story value. So if the goal of the game is to tell a good story, and most of these games were built on the premise that the rules should not get in the way of story, why are the rules themselves not much about supporting the story?

While I have seen Theatrix's flowchart, perhaps its just a little too dry for me to digest. Even then, why are character's measured in abilities and numbers? It seems to be unrelated to the story itself, and more a hold over from D&D...

Feel free to fling random responses into this stew :smile:

Bankuei

Bankuei wrote:

I think that games that may not necessarily have an obvious goal or winning scenario still have goals. At a basic level, you could say that the basic goal of many role-playing games is to be able to keep playing (not die, reach oblivion, lose one's mind, etc.) In a game without any chance of death (Chinese checkers) there are no rules for it, so that cannot be the goal of the game.

While you could use GURPS as a tool, it is not conducive to playing Narrativist games. Story is not the goal of the game as much as simulation, and simulation of a character, not of a group, or a movement.

All balls roll, some bounce, and most can be thrown. Any game with certain goals can use a ball as a tool (we need something we can kick that rolls) to make the game work. You cannot play stacking games with a ball. Jenga will not work with a set of balls, even if magnetic.

Rpg's have much more open sets of goals than most games, but lets say at least these goals are common in most: Continued play, character growth, storytelling, achieving story goals.

Would you say there's a game that doesn't include at least one of these?

Fang, that's silly. A Goal doesn't have to be a "hidden agenda" or anything so sophiticated to be a goal. As Ron points out, the traditional goal of all RPGs is to have fun. The GNS "goals" then are the things that are pursued to have fun. I'm assuming that you juggle to have fun, even when you are alone. Or at least to improve, which would be to become generally more satisfied. The "to have fun" thing could be more precisely stated as to get some sort of satisfaction from the act.

Which is what my one year old son is doing right now with his toy ball. He's just batting it around. Why? Well, I can't read his mind, but there's a smile on his face.

What Sid Mier said about Sim City is more parallel to the difference between Gamism and Simulationism (no surprise). His game is a Simulation, hence the name. It is not a Game. Or, it is Simulationist, not Gamist to make the analogy.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote:

As Ron points out, the traditional goal of all RPGs is to have fun. The GNS "goals" then are the things that are pursued to have fun. I'm assuming that you juggle to have fun, even when you are alone. Or at least to improve, which would be to become generally more satisfied. The "to have fun" thing could be more precisely stated as to get some sort of satisfaction from the act.

What Sid Mier said about Sim City is more parallel to the difference between Gamism and Simulationism (no surprise). His game is a Simulation, hence the name. It is not a Game. Or, it is Simulationist, not Gamist to make the analogy.

On 2001-10-27 14:49, Mike Holmes wrote:
What Sid Mier said about Sim City is more parallel to the difference between Gamism and Simulationism (no surprise). His game is a Simulation, hence the name. It is not a Game. Or, it is Simulationist, not Gamist to make the analogy.

I guess to clarify what I'm saying, you're correct, the term I mean is purpose. I think we can all agree the purpose is to have fun, what I am talking about is the means that the toy or the game is intended to provide fun.

What I mean is that the wood blocks cannot fufill the same purpose as a ball in the ways you can use them. You cannot play the same games with jenga blocks as you can with balls, just as you cannot play basketball with a block(well, maybe, it just will suck to dribble :razz:). The design is the mechanics, and the mechanics are intended to facilitate the purpose of the game, whether it be narrativism, simulation, or gamism. A toy itself has no rules, while a game does.

Every rpg has a resolution mechanic, even if it is as simple as I say it happens, so it does. This mechanic already indicates that there is a possiblity of things happening that are against what I'm trying to acheive in the game. But does the specific mechanic fit in with the purpose of the game to simulate, create a story, or play as a challenging game?

Does competing authorship help tell a good story?

If the purpose is to create a good story, what does the mechanics do to benefit the purpose of story by making your character more powerful? Making the player more powerful to alter the story?

Many systems claim that the rules "allow" you to tell a good story, but shouldn't they support you in telling a good story?

It took me a week to get it straight, but maybe this will bring it back to focus...sorry it took so long... :smile:

Bankuei

Does competing authorship help tell a good story?

If the purpose is to create a good story, what does the mechanics do to benefit the purpose of story by making your character more powerful? Making the player more powerful to alter the story?

Many systems claim that the rules "allow" you to tell a good story, but shouldn't they support you in telling a good story?

Bankuei wrote:

The design is the mechanics, and the mechanics are intended to facilitate the purpose of the game, whether it be narrativism, simulation, or gamism. A toy itself has no rules, while a game does.

Every rpg has a resolution mechanic, even if it is as simple as I say it happens, so it does. This mechanic already indicates that there is a possiblity of things happening that are against what I'm trying to acheive in the game. But does the specific mechanic fit in with the purpose of the game to simulate, create a story, or play as a challenging game?

And my point is that role-playing games don't have rules telling you what you are supposed to do with them (like toys, you can do whatever you like). As mentioned, a game

You can't do that in simulation.

This is why I have had so much trouble with this, 'all games have purposes' talk and the fact that you have not really demonstrated that all role-playing games (despite their name) are games. The very fact that what you seem to

It has been said by many people, in many places, that you can't really design a role-playing backwards from its focus to its implementation. Trying to find a correlation between specific mechanics and their supposed purposes is likewise pointless.

On the subject of goals and games. I think that the definition of games is not particularly important. We want to do someting and it seems sorta gamelike, but may not be. OK, who cares? What we seem to agree on is that there are goals and that they are different for each GNS mode.


The question asked in the beginning of the thread was: do RPGs work against these goals when competition is introduced.

And I'd say to the extent that co-operation is what you want, then, yes, competitive mechanics may be detrimental, anbd vice versa. But what Fang says below also applies.

On 2001-10-29 00:45, Le Joueur wrote:
Now it sounds like your suffering from the idea that every mechanic has one-to-one specific purpose attachement. In my opinion this is not so. I believe there are a huge number of mechanics that lend themselves to many different goals, both within the GNS model and without.

Only when mechanics are brought together into a system can you actually address how well 'focused' they are. At the 'is this one mechanic right for said focus' level, you can't really say anything without seeing how it all works together. (Though I am not versed in it,) take the Pool for example, if I am not mistaken it uses a dice pool mechanic vaguely similar to the ones found in Shadowrun and Vampire: the Masquerade, yet as a whole, it is very Narrativist while the other two arguably are not. Is the dice-pool mechanic Narrativist? Alone you cannot say. It can only be determined when the system is examined (and probably played) as a whole.

On 2001-10-29 10:33, Mike Holmes wrote:
This is an excellent point. The Pool's pool mechanic seems Gamist on the surface, but is actually there to support the MoV mechanic which is very Narrativist. Is it cooperative? Well, the consensus amongst Narrativists seems to be that giving power to players to affect outcomes is cooperative in that as long as they feel the need to do so they can make it happen. This is actually not a very strong argument for it being positively co-operative. In fact there is a stronger negative argument which says that a player can use such power to be uncooperative, but this is less likely to be fun so why do it?

It's been my observation that people do a great deal of things that are both uncoorperative and 'not fun.'

Could it be that highly cooperative players are drawn to Narrativist games (which would then produce that consensus aside from Narrativist mechanics)?

Hey,

I should like to distinguish between "uncooperative" and "competitive" players.

Functional competition demands cooperation about the rules of engagement. No competitive game is possible if the means by which success is designated may be controlled from within the game; you end up with Calvinball. Competition with no cooperation as a foundation means nothing but a fight.

(This distinction is so well understood by actual humans in most contexts that it is often left unsaid. "KILL'EM!" people shout from the stands, with absolutely no intention whatsoever that corresponds to what they are literally saying.)

I agree with all of Mike's points, but that distinction seems completely necessary to me. It also seems to be missed or avoided in a lot of discussions about competition in role-playing.

Best,
Ron

Ron's right of course. By uncooperative, I mean merely unwilling to operate as part of the team, not wanting to operate outside the framework of the game. That is what I was trying to point out in my first statement to Marco. First we all agree to play the game within the rules. Then some players will form teams with the other players and others won't. The latter are the "uncooperative" players I refer to. This is a compleely valid way to play, and a desire that should be considered.

Players who compete amongst themselves are "uncooperative" yet may be playing within the rules of the game. Competitive in this sense would be a subset of uncooperative. Another sort would be the player who played the narrativist game just to promote his own story. Anyhow, the question in Narrativism is, if a player plays this way is that automatically disruptive to play as a whole, or can good group produced play still occur? Additionally, are there mechanics that work to make this sort of play good? I'd suggest that, perhaps the relationship map for the group would be one such mechanic. If you give everyone interrelated goals then a single player promoting only his story may help all the stories. Not my his design, but becuse the mechanic has made it so.

This is what I mean by considering the particular mechanics of a design for whether or not they promote good stroy in concert with either cooperative or uncooperative play. The same goes for the G and S goals. (Hmmmm... Uncooperative Simulationist... not even sure what that would mean... Makes characters that would have nothing to do with the other characters? hmmm...)

Mike

Mike,

If I read you correctly, you are really referring to uncooperative CHARACTERS, not players. This is crucial.

Biggest dichotomy: uncooperative vs. cooperative PLAYERS. I think it's an issue, but not a hard one - we jettison any concern about the former and continue with our analysis only of the latter. I also want to specify that I am not talking about OBEDIENT players, relative to a GM. I am talking about cooperating in the sense that we are having a good time together.

So, given cooperative PLAYERS, we can now break them down into competitive vs. noncompetitive players. As you know, if we are talking about first priorities, this is the boundary between Gamist and non-behaviors. [This discussion in many ways is getting ahead of Gareth and me in our dicussion of Gamism at present, but for now, let's go ahead and use "competitive" without value-tags or concern with the "struggle" term.]

Completely in parallel with the above (neither in nor out of the competitive/noncompetitive issue), there is a totally different issue: cooperative vs. uncooperative CHARACTERS. Remember, we are totally within the cooperative-player box. This is the basis for the very fruitful Dickweed Character discussion that may be found on the Sorcerer forum at the Gaming Outpost, which generated the idea that a real dickweed of a character may be very valuable and enjoyable in a Narrativist game as long as the player was often in Author Stance.

Best,
Ron

On 2001-10-29 11:33, Mike Holmes wrote:
In terms of RPGs these are bad players. They should not count in any discussion other than possibly to consider what might work to rtransform bad players into good ones.

I definitely believe that both cooperative and competitive gameplay can be fun, whether it is us vs. them, or an all out political struggle for a throne. But my question focuses more on the mechanics allowing cooperative gameplay by players rather than necessarily the characters.

Obviously cooperative Players can work with many systems to tell a story, but having good mechanics to support it is my concern. While I love the Pool's MOV, I guess the question comes in that it seems one player is getting a significant portion of story control at crucial points. Assuming all players have good intentions, but differing story ideas, there does become a slight competition in how its going to turn out(even if the intent is the best story possible).

Now, I know no rules can make a "good" or "bad" story, since its based on your views of what is good or bad, but we can certainly say some rules give more freedom, and other hinder that. Writing a story gives you complete control to the story, and you can make it "good" to your heart's content. The fact you have multiple players contributing to the story means you cannot predict the outcome, thereby making it a game.

I'm just wondering about some of the principles or ideas that would allow the players as a group to work cooperatively, with cooperative rules to create the story they want, without losing sponteneity or the mystery of how it will turn out. Many games provide competitive rules for cooperative stories or reward inappropriately to actually aiding the goal of making a good story.

Bankuei

contracycle wrote:

Fang wrote:

And my point is that role-playing games don't have rules telling you what you are supposed to do with them (like toys, you can do whatever you like). As mentioned, a game

Not true. All games have feedback loops to induce behaviour. Pawns can only move forward, frex; you start at the back of the board. RPG's have feedback loops too: "kill all the monsters and grab their stuff for XP's" being among the most iniquitous. This is why system matters.

All games are composed of reciprocal actions. They feature reward and penalty systems (keep playing/stop playing at simplest). RPG's qualify.

It has been said by many people, in many places, that you can't really design a role-playing backwards from its focus to its implementation. Trying to find a correlation between specific mechanics and their supposed purposes is likewise pointless.

Really? Perhaps I misundretsand, would you like to exapnd on what you mean here?

That's just my point. In chess your goal is to win, obviously. My main thrust here is that not all role-playing games are made this way. They just aren't. Can you show me where The Pool has this kind of "feedback loop?" Besides, the best games of Dungeons & Dragons I

ever played was when we negated this "feedback loop" and pursued our own agenda. The fact that you can go these ways without leaving the 'system' is where "you can do whatever you like." In chess, you pretty much either attack, defend, or position, by contrast.

And so do conversations. Are you now going to tell me that every single conversation, without exception, has goals?

To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.

Not in this thread. Perhaps you could start another stating what you think I mean and I can clarify.

contracycle wrote:

Fang wrote:

That's just my point. In chess your goal is to win, obviously. My main thrust here is that not all role-playing games are made this way. They just aren't. Can you show me where The Pool has this kind of "feedback loop?"

Yes - in the risk vs. reward decision in how many dice to commit to a given decision. Q.v. thread analysing trends in result behaviour, the inverted pool, and strategies for maximising outcome based on probability of result.

when we negated this "feedback loop" and pursued our own agenda. The fact that you can go these ways without leaving the 'system' is where "you can do whatever you like." In chess, you pretty much either attack, defend, or position, by contrast.

Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot more subtle than in something like chess...

But much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.

To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.

Not in this thread. Perhaps you could start another stating what you think I mean and I can clarify.

Umm, doesn't seem right to me to start a whole thread just for a clarification of one paragraph. You appeared to mean that there is no point trying construct games deliberately; never mind.

Except none of that tells you what you must to do. There is no, 'staying alive' goal or anything 'built in.' You can still put in any of your own goals, or none at all. That's what I have been trying to say. Not every game has goals.

Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot more subtle than in something like chess...

That's the point. My opinion (and my point) is that at when it gets that "subtle" and that open-ended, it fails at being a game. Game theory practically ceases to be relevant in many 'non-system' role-playing games and yet they are still clearly role-playing 'games,' to me this

But much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.

To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.

Then we can agree to disagree at this point?

Once more with emphasis....

contracycle wrote:

Fang, stating his opinion wrote:

Except none of that tells you what you must to do. There is no, 'staying alive' goal or anything 'built in.’ You can still put in any of your own goals, or none at all. That's what I have been trying to say. Not every game has goals.

Untrue - as I pointed out previously, the most BASIC goal is to "keep playing". This is analogous to the real life experience of having the goal "stay alive".

Certainly, in most RPG's the loops are a lot [subtler] than in something like chess...

That's the point. My opinion (and my point) is that at when it gets that "subtle" and that open-ended, it fails at being a game.

No, it does not cease to be a game.

But much of normal human social interaction is, IMO, a form of gaming.

To that I disagree, and that is probably the end of the discussion.

Then we can agree to disagree at this point?

Yes, but I think you are missing a major tool for the analysis of human interaction.

And I believe you are missing something in the over-generalization that everything (including "real life") is gaming. I simply wanted to share a new and perhaps unusual opinion on what role-playing gaming might be. And I do take offense at you attacking my opinion. If you can’t stand the

Preview my next game: Opinion: The Wordwar... :razz:
I'm glad to see so many different views about the subject.

Thank you both for teaching me that I need to better define my question and ideas before sharing them. Let's agree to disagree in a civilized manner and not worry about converting each other. I look forward to hearing more about your ideas in the future, and hopefully we learn and build from them.

Thanks for the input,

Bankuei

Look, I don’t feel like I want to ‘chill.’ In fact, I’m feeling a little attacked here. Everyone else reading can skip this rant....

Listen, when I heard Bankuei write, "Inherent to every game is some sort of goal or goals," followed by text that clearly assumed that role-playing games were like all games everywhere, I decided to offer a new perspective of my own: "but I do think it is clear that it is past time to get out of the ‘thinking of it as a game’ box." I added that I thought thinking ‘in that box’ "is arguable at best," meaning that there might be other frames of reference.

I certainly believe that meant I was not saying that all role-playing games are toys or that all role-playing games are never games. I thought it clear that I felt, by considering the Sim City toy example with reference to role-playing games, a little more depth could be had.

Later I stated, "and my point is that role-playing games don't have rules telling you what you are supposed to do with them." "My point" means it’s my opinion. Yet you immediately came back with, "Not true." As an opinion, I hope it’s obvious that it does not have a true or false quality. Opinions can be based on facts, but are not facts unto themselves. The only fact inherent in an opinion is that the owner holds it. Which in this case is quite true.

Then you went on about "implicit goals," which I thought spoke for the idea that role-playing games weren’t like non-role-playing games, which have explicit goals. You also remarked on how role-playing games were "a lot more subtle than in something like chess," reinforcing this idea. Yet you decide to go over to the inflexible idea that any goals, no matter how implicit, subtle, unvoiced, or under-expressed make something, nay everything, a game. This is clearly your opinion, because it certainly isn’t fact.

I try to sum this up with, "That's what I have been trying to say. Not every game has goals." This is a restatement of my opinion. And still you return with, "Untrue," thereby dictating my opinion back at me.

I think this idea is driven home when I write, "My opinion (and my point) is that when it gets that ‘subtle’ and that open-ended, it fails at being a game." And you immediately come back with, "No, it does not cease to be a game." This is a direct statement, no effort to frame it as an opinion. Simply saying that I am incorrect (or not true, or untrue, in your words) in my opinion is dismissive and not constructive.

Tiring of this endless circle, I simply tried to emphasize that all of this is my opinion, not some statement of fact, adding that it was only to offer a wider perspective than the ‘role-playing gaming is only gaming’ idea. To this you seek to dismiss with "Chill, dude," which I find insulting.

The biggest problem I have is no less than three postings ago, I suggested that we disagree and should leave it at that. Even in the post after that I suggest, "Then we can agree to disagree at this point?" You declined saying I was "missing a major tool." How can I be missing something when my opinion is to be added to game theory when approaching role-playing game design? By the post after that, I certainly was losing my cool in the face of your insulting responses; who can blame me?

Why do I interpret your writing as venomous? There’s the fact that you seem to be knee deep in at least two other (at least it sounds this way to me, an opinion again) brusque discussions elsewhere in the Forge. Also the fact that not once did you ever say you were voicing another opinion (until here at the end with "expression of a counter-opinion" comment), you instead use terms attacking the ‘truth value’ of my opinion.

I especially like the way you took to the moral high ground with the "I have solid grounds for disagreeing." The grounds upon which your comments stand have no bearing upon what I said (not solid at all?). So what if everything can be looked at as if it is a game? My question was whether any value might be added considering role-playing games also as toys (not exclusively but in addition to ‘as games’).

Finally, you ask, "you sound very much like you cannot stand to have an opinion challenged." Ooh, very passive-aggressive. I 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 was challenged (the parts where I suggest that goals so subtle don’t count well in game theory and might be better treated as toy theory), you become very condescending and yet never willingly agree that we will not agree. (Even the threads generator, Bankuei, has suggested that we "agree to disagree in a civilized manner," as I had asked so long ago.)

You want to challenge my opinion? Try finding ways that role-playing games 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 ]

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.

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.

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.

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.