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

[gban007]

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.



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

That reading recipes or gamebooks can't give 100% certainty on whether you woll enjoy it or not.
It can give a good steer, but until actually played / cooked you wont know for certain.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

A few things.

First, while writing is an art form, a game is not. D&D is not entirely art. I'd say the art aspect is smaller than the non-art. The game mechanics are the non-art part of the game. The art is in the fluff aspects, which aren't all that relevant to how you play the game, or how the game is designed.

Second, even with art there are specific types of art. If I paint something in the impressionist style, no amount of wanting it to be a different style is going to change it. You might love surrealism, but you wanting an impressionist painting to be surrealist is not going to change what is.

The designer has created a specific game(mechanics), with specific art(fluff) to go along with it. And while we might have subjective opinions about whether those things are good or not, none of those opinions are going to cause the design to be flawed.

 

[Maxperson]

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.



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

The point was that you need to read and try the RPG as it's written to have a complete understanding of what it is trying to accomplish and how well it does that. If you only read and try parts of it, it's going to be a different experience.

When my group switched from 3.5e to 5e we agreed that the first campaign would be played entirely RAW so we could see what worked for us and what didn't. In the second campaign onward we house ruled the hell out of it.

 

[SableWyvern]

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.

No. Speaking for myself, I believe your position is objectively wrong. Even though you're not willing to come out and say it, your statements make it clear that you believe that good game design is design that results in the sorts of games that you prefer. As far as I can tell, based on the statements you've made repeatedly throughout this thread, you have no capacity to accept that other paths might be equally legitimate.

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.

Hubris, much?

I've seen nothing to suggest that your knowledge of game design is equivalent to an experienced judge, someone qualified to teach a subject or major RPG industry figures who have had a significant impact on the hobby.

Your framework is very different from the work of experts and respected (if controversial) industry veterans. Simply stating that you deserve and expect to be treated as an expert on TTRPG design doesn't make it so.

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.

Why would you expect people who believe you are wrong to praise you and tell you how amazing your ideas are? Even if you were justified in comparing yourself to Edwards or Alexander, it's not as if they have ever been free from criticism. People are being firm, but mostly polite, in rejecting your position.

People throughout this thread have explained, in a wide variety of ways and with numerous specific examples, why adding scope and utility is not always the best option. Everyone who has ever gained benefit from a specialised device, tool or system knows from experience that utility is not the be-all and end-all of design. Your responses have essentially all boiled down to repeating the mantra that adding broader utility is always a good idea..

If almost everyone else in the thread is telling you that you are wrong, instead of complaining that they are not being obsequious enough, it might be worth conducting a genuine reexamination of your position.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That reading recipes or gamebooks can't give 100% certainty on whether you woll enjoy it or not.
It can give a good steer, but until actually played / cooked you wont know for certain.

And my comment was that I feel certain enough with the game book that I consider my accuracy about 90% unless its a smaller subset, and even that's usually a sign I didn't read that section close enough, not that I wouldn't have been correct if I had.

(Occasionally I'll hit a game system that is so alien this isn't true, but in those cases that is clear to me too.)

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

If we're not interested in the things I actually said and need to rewrite it so I secretly said something more vile, or that we can only proceed when I've been put in my place, I'm not sure conversing is fruitful.

No one need treat me like an expert in the sense of bowing to me as some kind of authority, but I know my own education, expertise, and skillset; my system of beliefs is not in fact, there to be crowdsourced.

If its important to you that you convince me, then convince me, but letting someone else's ideas stand in contrast is always an option, we're having this conversation because ya'll took issue with my position. not because I pushed it onto anyone.

 

[bsss]

If its important to you that you convince me, then convince me, but letting someone else's ideas stand in contrast is always an option, we're having this conversation because ya'll took issue with my position. not because I pushed it onto anyone.

Now it's our fault you're in this thread refusing to conversationally be convinced of anything contrary to your extremely dubious but entrenched opinion? But challenging your opinion is also "putting you in your place" and "crowdsourcing your expertise"? Get real, champ.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Now it's our fault you're in this thread refusing to conversationally be convinced of anything contrary to your extremely dubious but entrenched opinion? But challenging your opinion is also "putting you in your place" and "crowdsourcing your expertise"? Get real, champ.

I'm sorry, why is it that you feel entitled to have convinced someone of something that you haven't actually convinced them of?

Like, I'm not clear on why you would be owed that in the first place?

 

[bsss]

I'm sorry, why is it that you feel entitled to have convinced someone of something that you haven't actually convinced them of?

Like, I'm not clear on why you would be owed that in the first place?

The reason that's unclear to you is because I didn't actually say what you are claiming. You seem to have problems having a conversation with people who disagree with you. This ain't your blog.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

The reason that's unclear to you is because I didn't actually say what you are claiming.

Buddy, Pal

Now it's our fault you're in this thread refusing to conversationally be convinced of anything

Its right there in writing.

You made snide remarks about how it can't be the fault of the prople arguing that their arguments didn't take, and I'm questioning why you'd be entitled to them taking because people are insisting "no actually, it isn't ok for you to hold a position like that"

I took a position on the OP, a subset of respondents had a problem with my position, I didn't find their arguments convincing, and a few of them pulled one of these, at least one person intentionally, going by their own words:

Why would this need to be my blog? I'm not seeing the connection? We already covered that even my OP in this thread included the requested hedging words, and I've said many times now that while I think games with coverage are better than games without because they better maximize utility, that doesn't make games without that coverage evil or that they need to change.