Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5693588" data-attributes="member: 3820">I think that's a subjective interpretation, and by no means a universal one. You can cite a literary reason for why my brother doesn't get to interact meaningfully with the game in this particular scene, but I don't think that makes the game more meaningful for him. How do you allow people to play meaningfully and continuously if their participation means that other people are not being sufficiently highlighted? It's the same point, but from the point of view of the people who are not being highlighted because the context means they don't have anything meaningful to do. They aren't playing the game, they're spectators watching the people who are having their individuality highlighted. See, for me it's a matter of playing a game. You can effectively say things like &quot;okay, now Gimli's not really going to have anything to do&quot; in a book format because Gimli doesn't have a player behind him. And if a player says &quot;Hey, I'll sit this one out, I don't think my dwarf would have much to contribute here,&quot; that's great -- I see it a lot, and it. But when you make a ruling that &quot;A dwarf fighter shouldn't be able to contribute notably here, because I want to call attention to what elves do well,&quot; even if the dwarf fighter's player wants to get involved meaningfully, that's a ruling I don't care for. If honoring an interpretation of a genre means cutting players out of participating in the game even when they want to, I think there are better game models to be explored. It's only &quot;shoehorning in&quot; collective participation if not everyone wants to participate collectively. Otherwise it's &quot;letting people who want to participate do so.&quot; Not everyone has to be equally good at everything. But it's good when everyone has something to do, that they're confident they can do without screwing everything up. It encourages them to play, not to spectate; I favor that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Barastrondo, post: 5693588, member: 3820"] I think that's a subjective interpretation, and by no means a universal one. You can cite a literary reason for why my brother doesn't get to interact meaningfully with the game in this particular scene, but I don't think that makes the game more meaningful for [I]him[/I]. How do you allow people to play meaningfully and continuously if their participation means that other people are not being sufficiently highlighted? It's the same point, but from the point of view of the people who are not being highlighted because the context means they don't have anything meaningful to do. They aren't playing the game, they're spectators watching the people who are having their individuality highlighted. See, for me it's a matter of playing a game. You can effectively say things like "okay, now Gimli's not really going to have anything to do" in a book format because Gimli doesn't have a player behind him. And if a player says "Hey, I'll sit this one out, I don't think my dwarf would have much to contribute here," that's great -- I see it a lot, and it. But when you make a ruling that "A dwarf fighter shouldn't be able to contribute notably here, because I want to call attention to what elves do well," [I]even if the dwarf fighter's player wants to get involved meaningfully[/I], that's a ruling I don't care for. If honoring an interpretation of a genre means cutting players out of participating in the game even when they want to, I think there are better game models to be explored. It's only "shoehorning in" collective participation if not everyone wants to participate collectively. Otherwise it's "letting people who want to participate do so." Not everyone has to be equally good at everything. But it's good when everyone has something to do, that they're confident they can do without screwing everything up. It encourages them to play, not to spectate; I favor that. [/QUOTE]

Verification