Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9007325" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Note the condition I set: that one would not do something because the consequences would be bad. Not failing to do something because you never considered it, nor because you were just preoccupied and never got the chance, nor because you elected to do Thing A instead of Thing B due to liking Thing A better but would gladly switch to Thing B if (say) you realized Thing A was contradictory or the like.I mean, I argued pretty much literally that earlier in the thread, and the point was either ignored or disputed, so...yeah, I mean, I agree. The conditions are always there, so it's not a choice between absolute and conditional, it's between different conditions, hence my arguments to the tune of &quot;if there will always be conditions, shouldn't we pick conditions that have useful features?&quot; E.g. being able to check to see if they work (testable), being able to decide if we agree with them or not (open/explicit), being able to share them with others to find out ways to use them better (teachable/describable), etc.I fully agree. Hence, we should reject an argument built upon a foundation such as &quot;absolute power(/latitude/etc.) is needed in order to achieve X.&quot; Because there is no such thing. There is only conditional power(/latitude/etc.) Which means it is valid to question which conditions are useful--and to ask what it means for a condition to be useful in the first place. In other words, questions of game design theory! (Hence why, in past threads, and good Lord it doesn't feel like this was a year ago, I have tried to examine the purposes for which a game gets designed. Because those purposes can tell us an awful lot about the conditions on any given participant's power, player, GM, or otherwise.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="EzekielRaiden, post: 9007325, member: 6790260"] Note the condition I set: that one would not do something [I]because[/I] the consequences would be bad. Not failing to do something because you never considered it, nor because you were just preoccupied and never got the chance, nor because you elected to do Thing A instead of Thing B due to liking Thing A better but would gladly switch to Thing B if (say) you realized Thing A was contradictory or the like. I mean, I argued pretty much literally that earlier in the thread, and the point was either ignored or disputed, so...yeah, I mean, I agree. The conditions are [I]always there[/I], so it's not a choice between absolute and conditional, it's between [I]different[/I] conditions, hence my arguments to the tune of "if there will always be conditions, shouldn't we pick conditions that have useful features?" E.g. being able to check to see if they work (testable), being able to decide if we agree with them or not (open/explicit), being able to share them with others to find out ways to use them better (teachable/describable), etc. I fully agree. Hence, we should reject an argument built upon a foundation such as "absolute power(/latitude/etc.) is needed in order to achieve X." Because there is no such thing. There is only conditional power(/latitude/etc.) Which means it is valid to question which conditions are useful--and to ask what it means for a condition to be useful in the first place. In other words, questions of game design theory! (Hence why, in past threads, and good Lord it doesn't feel like this was a year ago, I have tried to examine the purposes for which a game gets designed. Because those purposes can tell us an awful lot about the conditions on any given participant's power, player, GM, or otherwise.) [/QUOTE]

Verification