Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9102889" data-attributes="member: 42582">This claim is simply false.Upthread the example was given of Candyland. I'm not familiar with that game, but I get the impression it involves about as much player decision-making as Snakes and Ladders.A person can play Snakes and Ladders, learn (around the age of 5 or so, based on my experience with children) that it involves no player agency, and then decide to play a different game they will find more rewarding. And that comparison of games can be based on any number of considerations, including that a game will be more rewarding if it provides those who play it with more agency.But you can decide to play a game that gives players more or less agency than chess. Upthread I explained that one reason I prefer backgammon to chess is precisely because it less demanding on me as a player.But the tennis player can instead choose to play a different game.You are committing the same fallacy that was common among ordinary language philosophers c 1960, of assuming that because some role or other is constituted by some particular set of expectations of constraints, those expectations or constraints can't be criticised. But they can be. Human are capable of thinking beyond the roles that they occupy, and subjecting the expectations and constraints that constitute those roles to critical examinationIn the context of a game, this is particularly easy, because (i) they can propose rules revisions, that would reconstitute the roles on a different basis, or (ii) they can choose to play a different game!</blockquote>

Verification