Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9792249" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Did you notice that not one of those things is participating? Because I have been very clear about this being about gameplay and participation.Becoming part of the audience is, by definition, not participation. You even used that very phrase in that very line! Your first, allegedly "best" option, was to "seamlessly slip from participant to audience". Meaning, you stopped being a participant. If you stop being a participant, that means you aren't participating. I have been talking about participation the whole time.They're still quite effective, and I rarely, if ever, have that problem with websites I actually want to use. It's unfortunate that you have had to use websites that do this. But I can say, from my experience, they are quite effective, and in particular YouTube remains quite thoroughly tamed in terms of ads.I mean, it's literally the actual truth of what's going on. I am personally of the opinion that rules text should be direct, specific, and unvarnished when it is describing the actual experience the player is going to have. Shoot straight, no pretense.It isn't, and any game that had a disclaimer like that would instantly get a significant negative hit. That you don't want to understand this is not relevant to whether it is true or not.And, as I just said above, no amount of rules-text will change that. No amount of adult conversations will change that. For precisely the same reason that no amount of rules-text, adult conversations, video, audio, or any other presentation method, will change you so that you would say "okay sure, my desire for 100% retrospective storytelling isn't important".If you can't be persuaded to stop wanting what you want by the book having a disclaimer or different rules text, why would others be persuaded to stop wanting what they want and instead start wanting what you want?Don't be disingenuous. You know why the vast majority of players would pull out their phone during a session. It's because they're bored and looking for stimulation elsewhere.No, it doesn't, for precisely the same reason that the bench IS NOT the penalty box. I know you know these things are different--enormously so. Being put in the penalty box is a punishment you endure because you screwed up. Being on the bench is a necessary break so players don't get completely worn out. Or, simply put...No. Not same difference. Do you get upset when a player you think did nothing wrong is sent to the penalty box by the referees? (I believe you've mentioned you enjoy hockey before; if not, substitute whatever sport you do prefer watching.) Do you get the exact same amount upset when the coach sends a player to the bench for, say, health reasons? If you do not, then by your own lights, the two are not and cannot be "same difference". They're different in critical ways that actually do matter for your claimed analogy.No. You aren't getting what I'm saying. Games are not sports. Games are not wars. They are games. Trying to pretend that a game is either of those things leads to problems, because games--at the very least, TTRPGs where you have a defined Game Master-type role and other such things typical of D&D-type play--fundamentally do not and cannot work the way either sports or war does. In sport, if the referee were also the head coach of one of the teams, that would be an instant scandal. If the referee is even slightly too friendly with one of the teams' coaches, that would be a flagrant violation of ethics (and possibly laws!) Conversely, the purpose of war is not survival (generally speaking; few wars are wars of extermination, for a variety of reasons). The purpose of war is completion of objectives. That's why Sun Tzu said, "To fight and conquer in all your battles is not supreme excellence; supreme excellence consists in breaking the enemy's resistance without fighting." A war where not a single person dies, not a single city is besieged, not a single building is destroyed, is the most successful war possible.Both "war" and "sport" are fundamentally inapplicable to a game environment. As you yourself already said, the duty is entertainment, not survival:Which means that neither war nor sport actually captures what a game is about. You can certainly use it to indicate the type or kind of entertainment you personally seek! But that type or kind is still merely a leaf on the tree, whose trunk is entertainment.I'm not, at all, making a semantic argument here. I am specifically rejecting the entire "sport/war" dichotomy as doubly wrong-headed.There definitely is. That's the whole point and purpose of designing games.This is like saying that there's no way to make a car that is both safe and comfortable, so we should just stop bothering with making cars comfortable. Of course there is! It's just challenging to make cars that are both safe and comfortable. (Or, more accurately, to be all four of safe, comfortable, affordable, and fuel-efficient--and yet automakers still find ways to achieve this.)Or, if you want a formal way of saying that: This is the lack-of-imagination fallacy. That you personally don't believe it is possible does not mean it is not. I have seen it done. It's done quite frequently in video games, for example, and it is a known and longstanding problem that it is bad game design to allow your game to contain boring, obvious solutions that players are thus massively incentivized to take.Uh...no?What on earth are you talking about here?Absolutely not. I...thought I was quite clear that such things have merit. They just are not part of gameplay.I'll respond to the second post later, possibly as an edit to this one.</blockquote>

Verification