Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="The-Magic-Sword" data-source="post: 8387565" data-attributes="member: 6801252">To build on this post a bit, I think that a big part of why we actually grapple over definitions for 50 pages even when we become aware that our argument hinges over differences in semantics is because Language itself often defines our values, so the grappling over semantics is a kind of cultural battle over values. Take the thread about changing perceptions of roleplaying for instance, there are multiple instances where people utilize and defend language to promote their own gaming values, with multiple people fighting over the same word. One poster views metagaming to include cheating by reading the monster manual, even as we're mostly talking about different means of making decisions (e.g. should I do what I as a player think is best to defeat the dragon, or will my character's emotional state have them do something else)Another insisted to me that their desire to overcome obstacles was different than 'playing to win' because they had the perception that I wasn't tolerant of sub-optimal decisions, despite the fact that by the end it didn't seem like we had very different expectations at all, but saw our expectations differently-- to them it seemed like the way we played was an expected baseline of good faith effort in overcoming obstacles with 'playing to win' as some sweaty tryhard next level analogous to picking on children.Then there was another person later who focused their entire argument on the manual's use of the word 'actor' as self evidentally referring to a specific process of thought, rather than as a more general descriptor.These viewpoints hinge on grouping behaviors under the same language that could in theory, be separated.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="The-Magic-Sword, post: 8387565, member: 6801252"] To build on this post a bit, I think that a big part of why we actually grapple over definitions for 50 pages even when we become aware that our argument hinges over differences in semantics is because Language itself often defines our values, so the grappling over semantics is a kind of cultural battle over values. Take the thread about changing perceptions of roleplaying for instance, there are multiple instances where people utilize and defend language to promote their own gaming values, with multiple people fighting over the same word. One poster views metagaming to include cheating by reading the monster manual, even as we're mostly talking about different means of making decisions (e.g. should I do what I as a player think is best to defeat the dragon, or will my character's emotional state have them do something else) Another insisted to me that their desire to overcome obstacles was different than 'playing to win' because they had the perception that I wasn't tolerant of sub-optimal decisions, despite the fact that by the end it didn't seem like we had very different expectations at all, but saw our expectations differently-- to them it seemed like the way we played was an expected baseline of good faith effort in overcoming obstacles with 'playing to win' as some sweaty tryhard next level analogous to picking on children. Then there was another person later who focused their entire argument on the manual's use of the word 'actor' as self evidentally referring to a specific process of thought, rather than as a more general descriptor. These viewpoints [I]hinge[/I] on grouping behaviors under the same language that could in theory, be separated. [/QUOTE]

Verification