NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5105724" data-attributes="member: 4937">Well, no... not exactly.  In fact, no... not at all.  You need to read what he said more closely.   - emphasis mineHe's not complaining about a game having alot of rules.  He's complaining about a game forcing a player (as opposed to the game moderator) to learn alot of rules.   If the game was rules heavy, and he as a player did not have to know about it, then based on what he described it would not seem to be 'videogamey' to him.  What he's really talking about isn't whether the game is 'rules heavy', but whether it is an 'open system'.Now, I admit that that is a kinda wierd perspective, in as much as that your first instinct is to say that its an attribute of videogames that you don't have to know the rules.  Indeed, videogames are almost by definition closed systems in that the player doesn't really know how they work.  They are often black boxes, especially when it comes to the details of the combat engine.  So this perception of 'videogamey'-ness would seem totally out of left field, where it not that it seems closely related to what some other people have said that they find 'videogamey' and that is the deemphasis of the role of the game moderator the empowerment of the player by moving the control of the rules 'across the screen' to the players side of the table.  So I conjecture that there is indeed some shared feeling amongst people using the term in games which are 'open systems' that reminds them of how they play videogames, and that idea intrigues me.  I do not care if it does not intrigue you.  I don't care if you don't see a pattern.  If you are just offended by the use of the term, I don't see why you are in the thread.  No.  But sometimes I get the feeling I'm the only one reading the thread.  You are flat out wrong about what the original poster said, and you are telling me I'm not paying attention?  I'm not ignoring anything.  I'm just trying to keep my ideas simple at this time in the vain hope that I won't confuse the issue further.Well, thanks for sharing, but there isn't much more profitable you can say if that's the whole of your opinion.I'm not saying your opinion doesn't count.But I am saying that your opinion excludes you from my audience.  If you think what I'm saying is meaningless, then I'm under no obligation to educate you.  I have no particular obligation to say things you understand.  You are clearly not part of my audience.Why?  I don't have an obligation to everyone that might hear me.  I'm not contractually obligated to teach you.  I'm not assigned a responciblity toward you as a condition of employment.  I don't have to be understood by everyone.  There are quite a few people that disagree on every matter worth talking about.  The fact that some people disagree doesn't undercut my ability to meaningful discuss these things. Clearly you are not reading the thread.  And if you are talking about me conveying 'feelings', then you aren't reading me at all.  I'm certainly not trying to convey a feeling.  I've put several concrete examples up now, and I'm well into the 'pursuing a hunch/theorem' stage.  The game is afoot.Oh...lets not.</blockquote>

Verification