Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8276840" data-attributes="member: 71699">I value threads like yours because they give us the chance to really talk about games as games. Being responsive to the OP is a matter of directly addressing the questions raised.You've expressed vexation about point that I'm really not making. It is clear to me that you are introducing a jargon term in the OP, and that &quot;skilled&quot; in that label is not identical to being skilled. So (responsive also to [USER=53980]@Fanaelialae[/USER]) in my posts addressing that, I am not conflating the two, I'm unpacking the distinction. Really just expanding on what you said in your follow up post on the first page. My fault might have been reiterating the point unnecessarily.However, on &quot;fundamental confusion&quot; I am being sincere. Here I am challenging the very idea of &quot;skilled play&quot;. If &quot;skilled play&quot; separates player skill at navigating the game world out from other skills such as in using game materiel, then it is founded on something that I don't think can happen in a game. From your poker example - and in many of the posts above - there is the concept of making materiel as inconsequential as possible, right? We don't want this is to be a matter of shifting skill to second-guessing your DM, so if it is not that then I think it raises the natural question - can game world, game rules, metagame knowledge, and game materiel really be separated!?I have no fear that the intent of this thread is one-true-way-ism, and I do not misunderstand that &quot;skilled play&quot; doesn't address those other skills, rather I moot it is fundamentally mistaken to suppose that there can be the separation required by the construct. EDIT And in saying that, I question what claims are implied by the construct? This thread's raison d'etre, right?!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8276840, member: 71699"] I value threads like yours because they give us the chance to really talk about games as games. Being responsive to the OP is a matter of directly addressing the questions raised. You've expressed vexation about point that I'm really not making. It is clear to me that you are introducing a jargon term in the OP, and that "skilled" in that label is not identical to being skilled. So (responsive also to [USER=53980]@Fanaelialae[/USER]) in my posts addressing that, I am not conflating the two, I'm unpacking the distinction. Really just expanding on what you said in your follow up post on the first page. My fault might have been reiterating the point unnecessarily. However, on "fundamental confusion" I am being sincere. Here I am challenging the very idea of "skilled play". If "skilled play" separates player skill at navigating the game world out from other skills such as in using game materiel, then it is founded on something that I don't think can happen in a game. From your poker example - and in many of the posts above - there is the concept of making materiel as inconsequential as possible, right? We don't want this is to be a matter of shifting skill to second-guessing your DM, so if it is not that then I think it raises the natural question - can game world, game rules, metagame knowledge, and game materiel really be separated!? I have no fear that the intent of this thread is one-true-way-ism, and I do not misunderstand that "skilled play" doesn't address those other skills, rather I moot it is fundamentally mistaken to suppose that there can be the separation required by the construct. EDIT And in saying that, I question what claims are implied by the construct? This thread's [I]raison d'etre[/I], right?! [/QUOTE]

Verification