Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 4994936" data-attributes="member: 2205">Don't be melodramatic; I don't feel oppressed.&nbsp; However, I cannot be in a discussion in which common usage of the word &quot;game&quot; is ignored in favor of some more limited definition that suits the purpose of the guy trying to coin it, but no one else.&nbsp; You're trying to limit the definition of game in such a way that commonly accepted games are excluded.&nbsp; The flippant discussion aside, there is no &quot;win condition&quot; to Spin the Bottle or Truth or Dare, for example.&nbsp; Therefore, saying that a game must have a &quot;win condition&quot; or it isn't a game is patently and obviously false, unless you try to say that Spin the Bottle and Truth or Dare are not games.&nbsp; Since such a claim is assinine, the claim was put forward that actually there are win conditions, but I hope that wasn't put forth seriously, because, c'mon.&nbsp; That's one of the worst cases of special pleading I've read in a long time.That's another easily falsifiable claim.&nbsp; Of course in a roleplaying game, a character doesn't necessarily have full freedom of action.&nbsp; In almost every game I've ever been in, the game has had all kinds of limitations, from the obvious (&quot;no, you can't build a giant laser to write your name on the moon; this is D&amp;D and you're a 1st level halfling rogue&quot;) to the local and situational (&quot;No, I don't allow any male players to play female characters; I've had too many problems with them&quot;) to the mechanical (&quot;I said you're a 1st level halfling rogue!&nbsp; No, you cannot cast fireball at the goblins!&quot;)Because Hussar's example restricts freedom of action in different ways than you're used to, you (apparently) aren't seeing the dichotomy; but your game has all kinds of restrictions on freedom of action too.&nbsp; They just fade into the background because you're used to them.So using that qualifier is easily falsifiable, and creating a new label because &quot;that's not a roleplaying game&quot; is a bad idea.&nbsp; Back in my day, if a game came out like that, we'd just say, &quot;that's a really weird concept for a roleplaying game.&nbsp; I don't like it.&nbsp; No thanks.&quot;&nbsp; Where this idea came from that we must now redefine roleplaying games specifically to exclude games we don't like is a mystery to me.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 4994936, member: 2205"] Don't be melodramatic; I don't feel oppressed. However, I cannot be in a discussion in which common usage of the word "game" is ignored in favor of some more limited definition that suits the purpose of the guy trying to coin it, but no one else. You're trying to limit the definition of game in such a way that commonly accepted games are excluded. The flippant discussion aside, there is no "win condition" to Spin the Bottle or Truth or Dare, for example. Therefore, saying that a game must have a "win condition" or it isn't a game is patently and obviously false, unless you try to say that Spin the Bottle and Truth or Dare are not games. Since such a claim is assinine, the claim was put forward that actually there are win conditions, but I hope that wasn't put forth seriously, because, c'mon. That's one of the worst cases of special pleading I've read in a long time. That's another easily falsifiable claim. Of course in a roleplaying game, a character doesn't [I]necessarily[/I] have full freedom of action. In almost every game I've ever been in, the game has had all kinds of limitations, from the obvious ("no, you can't build a giant laser to write your name on the moon; this is D&D and you're a 1st level halfling rogue") to the local and situational ("No, I don't allow any male players to play female characters; I've had too many problems with them") to the mechanical ("I said you're a 1st level halfling rogue! No, you cannot cast fireball at the goblins!") Because Hussar's example restricts freedom of action in different ways than you're used to, you (apparently) aren't seeing the dichotomy; but your game has all kinds of restrictions on freedom of action too. They just fade into the background because you're used to them. So using that qualifier is easily falsifiable, and creating a new label because "that's not a roleplaying game" is a bad idea. Back in my day, if a game came out like that, we'd just say, "that's a really weird concept for a roleplaying game. I don't like it. No thanks." Where this idea came from that we must now redefine roleplaying games specifically to exclude games we don't like is a mystery to me. [/QUOTE]

Verification