D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Maxperson]

Your premise does not support your conclusion.

Beliefs about the nature of the world and the cosmos have varied over time and by culture. That does not entail that the truth or falsity of general relativity is subjective.

Beliefs about the best way to raise children have varied over time and by culture. That does not entail that propositions about how it is good and bad for parents to treat their children are all purely subjective.

Beliefs about the permissible forms of marriage have varied over time and by culture, but this does not entail that changes to marriage norms have nothing to be said about them other than we changed our minds.

What people desire is (obviously) a subjective matter. That does not entail that what is desirable or valuable is subjective, and it certainly doesn't entail that these things are subjective in the way that tastes are.

There is no scientific proof that beauty is objective. At best there are things like symmetry that most people view as more attractive, but not all. And as I showed upthread, symmetry does not equate to beauty. You can have symmetrical ugly.

Beauty is subjective.

 

[Maxperson]

They're different phenomena, sure. But I think you can see the basic point: that not amenable to measurement doesn't entail is merely subjective.

Sure, but you still have to prove objective. "We can't measure what goes into beauty, but since there could be causes of beauty that can't be measured, beauty is objective" doesn't cut it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

That's not a design goal for the system. Its a design goal for the product. They aren't the same.

THANK YOU.

Seriously. It's so hard to get people to see the difference between a business goal like "make more money" and a design goal. You cannot design "make more money"! That's not a thing designers can do! Now, the ways they choose which design goals they pursue will probably be conditioned by those business goals, and maybe they should be. Maybe not!

But you can't design "make more money" any more than you can design "happiness." You can design a game hoping that the design goals you pursue will eventually result in player happiness, but you cannot design the game itself to directly be or have happiness. It's just not possible.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

There is no scientific proof that beauty is objective. At best there are things like symmetry that most people view as more attractive, but not all. And as I showed upthread, symmetry does not equate to beauty. You can have symmetrical ugly.

Beauty is subjective.

Sure, but you still have to prove objective. "We can't measure what goes into beauty, but since there could be causes of beauty that can't be measured, beauty is objective" doesn't cut it.

I think I'll believe the professional philosopher on this one.

 

[pemerton]

Earth is flat is a subjective opinion. That's its not is objective.

@Lanefan's criterion for subjectivity appeared to be that there is disagreement.

And there is disagreement about whether or not the earth is flat: a small number of people sincerely assert that it is, while many other people disagree with them.

Now, if you take the view that it is objective although subject to disagreement, then in order to show that other judgements are purely subjective you're going to need to do more than point to the mere fact of disagreement.

There is no scientific proof that beauty is objective.

<snip>

Beauty is subjective.

Let H be any historical event that ever occurred. And let C be some posited cause of that event. There is no scientific proof that C caused H. This is because claims of causation in history are not amenable to scientific demonstration.

It does not therefore follow that all claims about causation in history are purely subjective.

The nature of beauty, and of other values, has been the subject of a lot of discussion over the past few thousands years. It takes more, to show that something is subjective, than simply pointing out that it can't be measure or it can't be proved scientifically or there is ongoing disagreement in respect of it or even there is intractable disagreement in respect of it.

 

[pemerton]

Sure, but you still have to prove objective. "We can't measure what goes into beauty, but since there could be causes of beauty that can't be measured, beauty is objective" doesn't cut it.

I haven't even asserted that beauty is objective. And I certainly haven't asserted that it is universal - by which I mean that a statement such as X is beautiful is true whoever asserts it. (Whether objectivity and universality are the same thing is contentious.)

For instance, beauty might be intersubjective (rather than objective). And it might be an explicable tendency (rather than universal). I'm sure there are other possibilities too, that I'm not thinking of at the moment.

 

[Maxperson]

I think I'll believe the professional philosopher on this one.

The vast majority of philosophy is subjective. What is objective in philosophy is provable or theoretical, and theoretical can't be assumed to be objective. You can't just guess at something and call it objective.

 

[Maxperson]

I haven't even asserted that beauty is objective. And I certainly haven't asserted that it is universal - by which I mean that a statement such as X is beautiful is true whoever asserts it. (Whether objectivity and universality are the same thing is contentious.)

For instance, beauty might be intersubjective (rather than objective). And it might be an explicable tendency (rather than universal). I'm sure there are other possibilities too, that I'm not thinking of at the moment.

I thought you said there was objective beauty earlier. I guess I was thinking of someone else.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The vast majority of philosophy is subjective. What is objective in philosophy is provable or theoretical, and theoretical can't be assumed to be objective. You can't just guess at something and call it objective.

I'm sorry, but...again, you are at best a casual observer with little to no training on the subject, vs someone whose literal actual job is on the topic. A bare appeal to authority is a fallacy. An appeal to authority because it is backed by accredited education and years of professional experience is not a fallacy--it is the reason we trust doctors to advise us about our health and lawyers to defend our interests in courtrooms and accountants to manage our finances.

So: I'm going to believe the professional philosopher on this one.

 

[Hussar]

THANK YOU.

Seriously. It's so hard to get people to see the difference between a business goal like "make more money" and a design goal. You cannot design "make more money"! That's not a thing designers can do! Now, the ways they choose which design goals they pursue will probably be conditioned by those business goals, and maybe they should be. Maybe not!

But you can't design "make more money" any more than you can design "happiness." You can design a game hoping that the design goals you pursue will eventually result in player happiness, but you cannot design the game itself to directly be or have happiness. It's just not possible.

No but you absolutely can design for being more approachable. Being easier to understand. Having a lower bar for entry.

All design points for designing a product with broader appeal.

You cannot separate the two. One will always impact the other. The needs of the product and the needs of being a game will always influence design.