Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7334799" data-attributes="member: 16814">I don't think [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] is saying checkers is a silly game.  I think he can't evaluate how checkers works without referencing chess.And, yes, there's been a lot of people doing the same back -- not being able to evaluate chess without referencing checkers.  I don't deny that.  I have limited time, though, so I can't engage everything.Actually, my point is that the fundamental conceits that govern how you approach authorship in the fiction are different, and that can make the orc and the map very different kinds of moves.  In [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s approach, with his fundamental conceits, the are equivalent moves.  But that's because of those conceits and may or may not apply with a differing set of conceits.  Again, the reference to boardgames:  in chess, you take a piece by moving into it's space using the prescribed way your piece is allowed to move.  In checkers, you take a piece by using a special move only allowed in specific circumstances -- ie, you cannot jump unless you're taking a piece.  If you evaluate jumping a piece from the paradigm of chess, you will have problems understanding how it works, and vice versa.  This kind of thing is pretty much exemplified by the interactions between [MENTION=29398]Lanefan[/MENTION] and [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] in this thread -- both keep entirely missing the paradigm the other is using and how that fundamentally changes play that superficially seems similar, like taking a piece in chess vs checkers.Oh, I'm absolutely sure [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] isn't getting this.  His continued insistence that fiction doesn't exist while applying fictional constraints on authorship makes it pretty clear he has missed the core of what I'm saying.  And his driving at that certain question has been fruitless for him so far, despite many excellent answers, because he is only evaluating it from his paradigm.  When you ask 'what's jumping good for' but you keep arguing that jumping is pointless in chess, then you're clearly only playing lip service to the idea that different paradigms are valid ways to play -- either because the concepts aren't clicking or because you're making an argument that one way is better than the other.  I'm extending [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] the benefit of the doubt that his problem is one of understanding.  And that's not a slight, either -- it's often extremely difficult to understand a different paradigm of understanding, and even more difficult to understand that another paradigm may be equally valid to your own.  This is a challenge all people face everyday.  I'm quite certain I have huge blindspots.  I'm also quite certain that I do understand some other paradigms and have concluded that mine is, indeed, better.  Not in regards to the topic at hand, for sure, I'm committed that the only thing about RPGs that should be absolutely true is that the players have fun.  Not having fun (and, I supposed, not honoring the social contract) is really the only badwrongfun.</blockquote>

Verification