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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8936362" data-attributes="member: 71699">I feel that this example poses challenges to skepticism, and perhaps as a result says something revealing about what we can and can't know.I think "care about" implies that there must be arrows from system-to-system or system-to-fiction that are driven by damage to armour. Those arrows make it part of ongoing play. It is implied that the consequences will be hindrances, seeing as if they were benefits then players would prefer to keep their armour as damaged as possible.I note the word "meaningful" here. Setting it aside for the moment, the game must contain a system for repairing the damage. My guess is "ability matters" implies that prior player choices about their characters should be inputs to that system. It could also invoke player skill.I note the word "satisfactory" here. I think what is implied is that supposing players can disagree on courses of action, there should be a mechanical (system) method for one player's preferences to prevail over the other.It could imply that norms of play that may be deemed virtuous are expected to apply (e.g. fairness among participants, advantages and disadvantages accruing to prior and in-the-moment choices, processes as streamlined as their scope allows, etc.)To me, Beliefs, and rules like them, are a complex and powerful technique. To try to summarise, I think what is implied is that the game rules should have brought players to voice commitments relating to recognisable fictional positions, that on being invoked and fulfilled or defied, drive arrows (to system, to fiction.) However, I also note "indulgent" and "piddling around" here.The critical analysis above has focused on describing technical features, and predicting game play expected to result where these features are all present. The analysis suggests a bar for adequacy (the prediction applies iff all four are present.) If I assume that "satisfactory" in fact implies no wider attempt to say what is virtuous, it all seems to be on solid ground.To me, it demonstrates that one can develop knowledge about the technical features of games. In predicting the consequential gameplay, it supplies a "why" in the sense of what will be seen, while being rightly silent on one's motives for wanting to see that. It is perforce silent on how the technical features will mesh with other technical features to serve the whole game. Where the analysis is descriptive (of technical features) and predictive (of game play) and made either expressly within a paradigm, or without prescription, and makes no wide claims as to virtue (it might well say something about norms of virtue within a paradigm it has situated itself within) then it is well justified.There is a catch, though. Predictions of game play depend on common interpretations of rules and principles and purposes for play. Coming back to "indulgent" and "piddling around"... who is to decide that? The determination that those labels apply is subjective... something like "X is indulgent iff there is a Y to whom X is indulgent, and then for that Y and not otherwise." I would remain skeptical of analysis settling what counts as indulgent or piddling around at all times for all cohorts, and therefore what counts as meaningful in contrast to those things. I believe there is an interplay between rules and cohorts that adopt them, such that what may have seemed meaningless outside the magic circle is meaningful inside it. What I here point toward will mostly arise due to exogenous rules or principles brought with players into the circle.What the above is trying to suggest is that a picture emerges of what can be said on solid grounds, and what might be true according to one paradigm or set of norms and false according to another. This is a particular problem for minority groups, as they can't count on norms to endorse their viewpoint. I'm not, just for avoidance of doubt, trying to criticise the content of the quoted post. The example came up before in conversation and as a part of a detailed play report by [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER], and I found that the commentary in the new post really helped reveal how the technical features involved are distinct, putting readers in position to judge their value in their context.I think the general structure<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">technical feature description</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">predicted game play</li> </ol>Works well, once setting aside or defining as clearly as possible what the boundaries are within which any wider claims to worth or meaning are made. It's really those wider claims that most often raise heckles and run into trouble. There should be some way to separate out such commentary - which can be very valuable - from other claims to knowledge.</blockquote>

Verification