The Parable of the Toaster | When "It's a Player Issue" is no excuse

[Theory of Games]

I thought about this for a while, and I think a core issue is that it demonstrates an inability to grapple with the subjectivity inherent in discussing game design-- its an art form, there isn't firm ground to fall back on to differentiate the normative statements being made by me or in opposition to me, the framework through which we might draw a distinction between the desires of the individual and what is/isn't "actually" faulty is self-referential. Any statement made on what might constitute good design is intrinsically subjective, and this could apply as a criticism of it.

We fundamentally don't do that with anything else artistic, its certainly possible and acceptable for someone to set themselves in opposition to my ideas-- but the underlying notion that my framework is any different than say, an edwards essay about what makes for good design, a class on what makes for good writing, a Justin Alexander blog post about how you should prep situations rather than plots, the assessment of an experienced judge in a cooking competition, isn't super defensible.

That's why I think this is problematic, its policing the same thing everyone else in this thread is doing, including the people trying to make it a problem, and they certainly aren't obsequious about their views-- the tone is consistently just shy of caustic.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

What are the goalposts now and what were the goalposts before?

 

[Umbran]

I think you're ignoring the ability of an experienced gamer to make pretty good guesses from reading a rules set at least.

And I think you are reading to respond....

Because you just quoted me talking about reading the game to get a better idea! It is there, in the section you quoted! Then you claim I ignore the idea of reading the game to get a better idea!?! And I just analogized to an experienced cook reading the recipe to get a better idea, too!

Good grief, dude! What the living heck? If you are going to quote me saying it, and then claim I am ignoring it, what the devil are we doing here!?!

 

[aramis erak]

Utility and specialization are different considerations.

One of the redeeming features of that "broad universe of specialized games that are designed well" would be, I would think, that they're also designed (and marketed!!!) with utility in mind: the rules are clear, the design goal is clear, and play expectations are clear.

Ideally, the ad copy should also make those goals clear.

 

[soviet]

Ideally, the ad copy should also make those goals clear.

If we're still talking about Masks, it is clear.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Effectively, the difference between, "I like pistachio," and, "Non-pistachio ice cream is flawed. All ice cream should be pistachio, for you too," is not a matter of deference.

I think this analogy is illustrative of the opposite though, if a game includes elements that don't have to be used, then by definition you aren't eating pistachio when you don't use the pistachio subsystem.

Your experience doesn't magically contain more pistachio when other people get the option to order Pistachio, unless we're talking about a conflict between the people at the table, because this is apparently a family style ice cream parlor.

What we're discussing, is the merit of the ice cream parlor not allowing anyone to have pistachio as a creative choice, from the perspective of an ice cream parlor choosing whether or not to have pistachio, by discussing our experiences taking friends to an ice cream parlor that didn't happen to have pistachio, but also the ice cream parlor lets you order pistachio, but how do you even describe the concept of having pistachio or not with respect to "Masks does have combat, and advertises fighting villains, but not like that!" and then we're trying to undermine the feedback that we felt it made the experience worse to not have the pistachio option in this pistachio-friendly context, by asserting the right to make creative choices without ever actually arguing for those creative choices that are being weighed.

"Why should I not serve Pistachio?" "Because you have the right not to!"

But Masks already works this way, if you don't want time travel then not using the Harbinger or Innocent playbooks keeps time travel out of the game, to use an example that is considered pretty controversial in terms of what it adds to a narrative. Is the option to use those playbooks and introduce time travel elements forcing pistachio into the product, if we consider time travel Pistachio? it even warns you that not everyone likes the time travel.

 

[aramis erak]

If we're still talking about Masks, it is clear.

Not about the agenda. If you think it's clear, you and I have different definitions of clear. I think it actively misleading.

 

[soviet]

Not about the agenda. If you think it's clear, you and I have different definitions of clear. I think it actively misleading.

No, your interpretation is unfounded.

 

[Thomas Shey]

And I think you are reading to respond....

Because you just quoted me talking about reading the game to get a better idea! It is there, in the section you quoted! Then you claim I ignore the idea of reading the game to get a better idea!?! And I just analogized to an experienced cook reading the recipe to get a better idea, too!

I'm drawing that conslusion from the apparent parallelism with the prior paragraph about recipes, which seemed to suggest you were dubious to understand by reading. If that was not your point there, I have to say I'm extremely unclear what the point in that was.

Good grief, dude! What the living heck? If you are going to quote me saying it, and then claim I am ignoring it, what the devil are we doing here!?!

See above. If you weren't casting doubt on it, what was the point in the recipe comparison?

 

[Lanefan]

If we're still talking about Masks, it is clear.

Given that about 98% of what I know about Masks came from this thread, it's safe to say I'm not talking about that specific game.