Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4991877" data-attributes="member: 80487">Umbran, your response goes off at such a strange tangent that I reckon I must have been terribly unclear!The &quot;it&quot; I meant as the same is simply the existence of a commonly agreed upon meaning of the term. There may be a game in which one gets a Triple Word Score for Breaking a Square with a Royal Flush and Snake Eyes in a Bolotomus, but it would probably be unhelpful to advertise it as &quot;Dungeons &amp; Dragons&quot;.&quot;Classic, strict games&quot; is obviously a narrower category than &quot;games&quot;. Here's what I mean:Non-game: a puzzle with a single optimal solution, the discovery of which makes further &quot;play&quot; pointless.Non-game: an entertainment in which the &quot;player&quot; has no significant choices, making the illusory &quot;play&quot; pointless.Finitude is not necessary. That Diplomacy in practice tends to have an end and a winner and losers is an &quot;accident&quot;. In an &quot;ideally&quot; played game, the other players would always team up to prevent someone from attaining the victory conditions.Nor is it an incomprehensible leap from the open-ended nature of &quot;rules for (non-fantastic) medieval wargames campaigns&quot; to Dungeons &amp; Dragons. Indeed it was so small that Gygax and Arneson considered it unnecessary to mention any difference in the original D&amp;D rules books.Neither did they make any mention of &quot;plot&quot;!Among the other games Gygax designed was one he called Dragon Chess. It is no less fine and fun a game for not having been adopted as the official rules set of the United States Chess Federation.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4991877, member: 80487"] Umbran, your response goes off at such a strange tangent that I reckon I must have been terribly unclear! The "it" I meant as the same is simply the existence of a commonly agreed upon meaning of the term. There may be a game in which one gets a Triple Word Score for Breaking a Square with a Royal Flush and Snake Eyes in a Bolotomus, but it would probably be unhelpful to advertise it as "Dungeons & Dragons". "Classic, strict games" is obviously a narrower category than "games". Here's what I mean: Non-game: a puzzle with a single optimal solution, the discovery of which makes further "play" pointless. Non-game: an entertainment in which the "player" has no significant choices, making the illusory "play" pointless. Finitude is not necessary. That [b]Diplomacy[/b] in practice tends to have an end and a winner and losers is an "accident". In an "ideally" played game, the other players would always team up to prevent someone from attaining the victory conditions. Nor is it an incomprehensible leap from the open-ended nature of "rules for ([b]non-[/b]fantastic) medieval wargames campaigns" to Dungeons & Dragons. Indeed it was so small that Gygax and Arneson considered it unnecessary to mention any difference in the original D&D rules books. Neither did they make any mention of "plot"! Among the other games Gygax designed was one he called Dragon Chess. It is no less fine and fun a game for not having been adopted as the official rules set of the United States Chess Federation. [/QUOTE]

Verification