Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 8292905" data-attributes="member: 71699">Let's reflect on the fact that frequently victory conditions for a game come in late in the arc of design. That is to say, victory conditions tell us something about skill, but they are usually not faithful to all of skill. Contrast Diplomacy with Chess. Skill in these games is a comparative concept: I win Chess when I play more skillfully than my opponent even if neither of us would be considered skillful by more experienced observers. On the other hand, I win Diplomacy not as a matter of any simple comparative, but of the balance between the participants. In some Diplomacy sessions, the two most skilful opponents take one another out, so that an objectively less skilful player wins. In Dune, players occasionally win by accident... as a consequence of more skilful players devastating one another.You might wonder if perhaps exercising skill to devastate one another turns out not to be skilful?! That is an interesting question, and gives us the right sort of nuance to ask what skill is.Are you saying that if the field of play is unbounded, or permissible moves can be added to on-the-fly, then there is no possibility of skill?Are you saying that if there is not an established win con/loss con, then there is no possibility of skill?Are you saying that if parties are not in opposition - for example if they have non-zero sum win cons -&nbsp; then there is no possibility of skill?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 8292905, member: 71699"] Let's reflect on the fact that frequently victory conditions for a game come in late in the arc of design. That is to say, victory conditions tell us something about skill, but they are usually not faithful to all of skill. Contrast [I]Diplomacy [/I]with [I]Chess[/I]. Skill in these games is a comparative concept: I win [I]Chess[/I] when I play more skillfully than my opponent [I]even if [/I]neither of us would be considered skillful by more experienced observers. On the other hand, I win [I]Diplomacy[/I] not as a matter of any simple comparative, but of the balance between the participants. In some [I]Diplomacy[/I] sessions, the two most skilful opponents take one another out, so that an objectively [I]less skilful[/I] player wins. In [I]Dune[/I], players occasionally win by accident... as a consequence of [I]more skilful[/I] players devastating one another. You might wonder if perhaps exercising skill to devastate one another turns out not to be skilful?! That is an interesting question, and gives us the right sort of nuance to ask what skill is. Are you saying that if the field of play is unbounded, or permissible moves can be added to on-the-fly, then there is no possibility of skill? Are you saying that if there is not an established win con/loss con, then there is no possibility of skill? Are you saying that if parties are not in opposition - for example if they have non-zero sum win cons - then there is no possibility of skill? [/QUOTE]

Verification