Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6731584" data-attributes="member: 3192">As I said, you started this thread. We can talk about how D&D was designed. What games are. Why all the elements of D&D came from wargames meant to enable, not disable strategic thinking by players. What I am not here to do is tell anyone they should or should not have fun for themselves. You don't want a game? Where players are tested for their own personal abilities? That they themselves must think and discover what is the underlying game design? Well okay. You want an amusing pastime for "telling or retelling imagined events", as you put it. Alright, but why talk about it if you simply disagree? It is not a game and it's only interfering with fixing the RPG hobby.As I demonstrated before, how we treat something matters for what we are actually doing with it. When games are not treated as games, but narratives, then that person is not playing a game. No matter how many rules others may be perceiving them as following.If I pick up a Rubic's Cube and use it as a puppet before a child saying, "Here comes Mr. Colorful!", I am not solving a puzzle. The entire culture and terminology of puzzles do not need to be redefined to accept this "agenda". Games begin and end as designs to enable players to decipher their underlying pattern in order to achieve objectives within them. That includes D&D as well. Read what Wikipedia is currently calling a "roleplaying" game There are no fictions in games. That's because I said Game Studies, not Game Theory. And whitewashing due to ignorance is not often understood as an attack by those perpetuating it. Also, I'll revise that to those who typically use the term "Game Studies" rather than others as there are other people like me who are unwilling to treat games as narratives. For me, that especially includes RPGs.Game Theory is not exclusively studying simultaneous action. Otherwise what you said is a solid definition of game playing - Players attempting to achieve objectives within a pre-existing design. Finite games put a border around this commonly to balance challenges to players and limit interference, but game play as behavior is still possible outside of games too, of course.The players in D&D game a design hidden behind a screen receiving information about it as relayed by an impartial referee. (very similar to Mastermind). That Game Theory doesn't cover the behaviors of referees is obvious. They aren't playing the games.That Game Theory may be the only theory referring to actual games and game play is historically rooted.This is what narrative absolutism looks like. A single school of philosophy taken as inevitabilist dogma. He even references Lakoff as if it wasn't a theory. Narrative reductionism may have been started by the French Post-Structuralists (and I like the french, even admire the philosophies there), but narratives should never be understood as dogma in and of themselves. No one is actually, inevitably telling stories. There's no such thing as storytelling. Your whole post seeks to denigrate others. Of course I don't want anyone to treat RPGs or D&D as a story. It's a game and neither gaming nor roleplaying having anything whatsoever to do with stories.</blockquote>

Verification