Flavour First vs Game First - a comparison

[GlaziusF]

Are you suggesting that no one plays basketball without a shot clock?

I dunno. The asphalt court down the block with the chain-link fence doesn't have a shot clock. The thing about the shot clock is, the guy who came up with it looked at games where players weren't being ball-hogging foul-drawing turtle-men and said "okay, 120 shots seems to make for a pretty exciting game, let's see what happens when you force that number". The shot clock isn't there to make the game MORE fun. Players can do that just fine on their own. It's to prevent the existence of things like win-loss records and championship trophies from having consequences that make the game LESS fun.

In short, it prevents a degenerate but winning strategy.

If there is a paradigm shift, where one can easily find New Basketball to watch, but where one has difficulty finding Old Basketball to watch, it becomes very difficult to claim (with a straight face) that there is not a higher cost associated with seeking out Old Basketball.

It's a good thing I'm not making that claim, then.

My claim, she goes like this: when all there was was old basketball, players didn't have as much fun and fewer people watched than when all there was was NEW basketball.

Of course, there could be other explanations then "it's the shot clock". The rules on fouls were slightly revised at the time as well. And who knows? Maybe alien social scientists from another planet dispatched secret operatives to talk up basketball at the same time New Basketball was debuting.

But my claim is: the shot clock made basketball a better sport for league play.

Yeah, that's a rider I should probably have attached earlier. Tons of people come to see the Harlem Globetrotters and they put the shot clock the same place they put the REST of the rule book.

Still though. If you want to challenge that claim, put up a compelling counter-argument.

Or, to put it this way, VHS wasn't necessarily the best format for viewing films on tape, but it was the most widely adopted. Hence, if you want to watch a film on tape, your best bet to find it is on VHS, even if VHS is an objectively worse format than its competitor in terms of picture and price.

Price doesn't matter if you can't buy what you want at all. And picture wasn't important enough for enough people to sink the extra money into buying another player.

Would you like to bring up Edison's record player? We can talk SO MUCH about Edison's record player.

Also, is DVD "better" than VHS, or just "more widely adopted"?

No, but attempting to answer that often leads to fallicious thinking.

No arguments are yellow.
No chocolate is yellow.
Therefore all arguments are chocolate!
That's what I call fallicious.

As I pointed out is true in the particular case of claiming that "more people play = objectively better" (which is, in a strange quirk of fate, objectively fallacious).

Can we leave "fallacious" behind? It's a yellow flag for the educated to throw to protect the unwary, but we're all educated here. It's either right or wrong to have that equals sign there. If it's wrong, make that thing true on one side and false on the other. Don't just say "fallacious" and walk away.

 

[Psion]

Okay, here's the thing. Legolas? Written by one dude. Conan? Written by one dude. How many dudes are sitting down at your gaming table? HINT: it is more than one.

Wait, what?

Did you miss where KM said:

What makes me choose D&D over these other toys is not "fun." It is a particular style of rarely-had fun that I very much enjoy: interactive, spontaneous storytelling.

?

So it appears he's not arguing against collaborative storytelling. Quite the contrary.

Indeed, it seems like his arguing against the extreme of "fun first" or "story first", and you're taking his statement to mean something totally different. I doubt that KMs game resembles the single-author style that gave us fantasy tales of old. But the fantasy tropes that those stories popularized gave D&D something to be about.

 

[The Little Raven]

There is no such quote in the 1E DMG, and that is not remotely the subject of the essay on hit points.

I never said it was from the essay on hit points. I just said it was in the 1e DMG.

Of the two approaches to hobby games today, one is best defined as the realism-simulation school and the latter as the game-school. AD&D is assuredly an adherent of the latter school...As a realistic simulation of the realm of make-believe, or even as a reflection of medieval or ancient warfare or culture or society, it can be deemed only a dismal failure.... Those who desire to creature and populate imaginary worlds.... who seek relaxation with fascinating game, and who generally believe that games should be fun, not work, will hopefully find this system to their taste.

It is not intended to simulate the "reality" of a make-believe world. It's intended to be a game to play to have fun. That's why rules that are contradictory to reality (like hit points) exist.

 

[The Little Raven]

(BTW, the quote The Little Raven was thinking about was the one in the first couple of pages where Gygax is saying that AD&D combat is not intended to be a simulation of historical combat -- that's it. Not "AD&D isn't intended to be a simulation" -- especially since it very obviously was given the content of the DMG.)

No, it's not just about combat. The full quote addresses more than just a simulation of ancient/medieval warfare, as it also states the game isn't intended to simulate a make-believe world or ancient/medieval culture.

He flat out states that some games are into realism/simulation and others are gamist, and that AD&D is definitely gamist.

 

[La Bete]

Can we leave "fallacious" behind? It's a yellow flag for the educated to throw to protect the unwary, but we're all educated here. It's either right or wrong to have that equals sign there. If it's wrong, make that thing true on one side and false on the other. Don't just say "fallacious" and walk away.

Dude, next you're going to have us drop "passive-aggressive", and what will we do then?

 

[Reynard]

Dude, next you're going to have us drop "passive-aggressive", and what will we do then?

Oh? You don't know?

 

[Delta]

It is not intended to simulate the "reality" of a make-believe world. It's intended to be a game to play to have fun. That's why rules that are contradictory to reality (like hit points) exist.

Heh. So now it's not about the hit point essay, but some other place. Of course, in your quoting from 1E DMG p. 9, I notice that you have ellided out the part that I use as my signature.

In 1E, hit points are not contradictory to reality. They have a specific in-world-reality interpretation, as laid out on p. 82. They are, in fact, "the highest degree of realism" that didn't interfere with the flow of the game.

 

[GlaziusF]

So it appears he's not arguing against collaborative storytelling. Quite the contrary.

Indeed, it seems like his arguing against the extreme of "fun first" or "story first", and you're taking his statement to mean something totally different.

I'm taking his statement to be nonsensical, like a guy wondering whether he should eat just food or whether he should eat just vegetables. No matter what you're doing you're eating food!

Actually it's even worse than that and I'm not sure how to analogize it so here it is straight. There is no human fundamentally opposed to stories. There is no human fundamentally opposed to fun. Stories are what we tell to others and ourselves ALL THE TIME, and fun - or if you'd rather, satisfaction - is what we try to have ALL THE TIME. So being worried about whether you should try to tell a story or whether you should just try to have fun is completely at odds with the nature of a) stories b) fun c) humanity d) all of the above.

And the most important thing for telling a collaborative story in a manner that's fun for everyone involved is to have a common social contract with a specified means of conflict resolution, a.k.a. DA RULEZ.

The problem with your line of reasoning is that we're not comparing ideas, we're comparing taste. Ultimately, it comes down to personal preference. And that's something that cannot be proven right or wrong.

Yes, but statements ABOUT your personal preference can very easily be proven right or wrong. If I say "you know what I hate more than anything else? Red. I would eliminate red from the face of this earth, had I the power" and then you follow me for a day and I wear a red shirt and red pants, drive a red car, wear red-tinted sunglasses, work in a red building with red walls and red carpets, and spend my entire day putting a second coat of red paint on things that have already been painted red just to make sure they're really red and the entire time I'm smiling, whistling and laughing, there are two possible conclusions: either that statement about my personal preference was wrong or we aren't sharing the same reality. Perhaps I am red-green colorblind and green is my favorite color in the world. And then you can ask me "what color is your shirt?" and clear up that confusion.

If I say "I like chocolate, I dislike avocados" then no one can "prove" that I am wrong, or should like avocados. Same for movies, same for editions.

But let's say I'm a chef and I cook with both chocolate and avocados. If I share my best chocolate recipe with you and you like the taste of it, is it somehow unreasonable to also offer you a bite of my best avocado recipe? Is it unreasonable for you to take it? After all, perhaps you don't like avocados because of the way they've been prepared, and perhaps you'll like them the way I can prepare them, and discover a new and delicious food!

There are several things you can say that are reasonable, of course. "I'm violently allergic to avocados" so even one bite WILL be harmful. "I tried that recipe already" so this approach won't convince you. "That's what you said about the LAST best avocado recipe LAST week" so all my arguments are less credible.

But personal preference is based on experience, and all experience is limited.

And personally, if you want to hear other reasons, you should not "start swinging" - it tends to cause peopole to clam up and stop reasoning, and start bickering. And then you have the whole edition war threads, and badwrongfun accusations.

I tend to follow more "love me or hate me, but spare me your indifference". Or if you really rather, I'm trying to figure out what things to say so that people become interested in having an argument with me, but don't get the impression that I'm trying not to argue in good faith.

And if somebody does get that impression and respond in that way, that too is a lesson and I'm going to try to figure out what I said that prompted that distrust so I can figure out how not to do it again.

 

[Fenes]

And if somebody does get that impression and respond in that way, that too is a lesson and I'm going to try to figure out what I said that prompted that distrust so I can figure out how not to do it again.

Your claim that your choice of game/edition/playstyle is better.

 

[BryonD]

Heh. So now it's not about the hit point essay, but some other place. Of course, in your quoting from 1E DMG p. 9, I notice that you have ellided out the part that I use as my signature.

Clearly taking things in context is highly over-rated.