22 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 202nd comment:
KaVir said:
I don't think it's fair to make sweeping statements like "Being allowed to just change what you are destroys the game atmosphere" without thematic context, any more than it would be to say that "Being allowed to cast spells destroys the game atmosphere". In both cases, what you're really saying is "Being allowed to perform activities that go against the internal consistency of the theme destroys the game atmosphere".
Sure. But I think that the implicit thematic assumption here is so common that it's reasonable to interpret these statements in that common theme. You might argue that that theme is a bad one or an uninteresting one or otherwise not one to be considered, but I think that's a different question.
The reason I think you're "over-generalizing" is that you're taking statements made in known contexts and extending them to far larger contexts – where they were not meant to be – and then saying that they're wrong in this new context. I agree that the larger context is more appropriate for gameplay in general, but I don't think the examples given (memory implants, skill downloads, even god-like beings) are appropriate for the absolutely dominant thematic element.
22 Jul, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 203rd comment:
Cratylus said:
That never gets old for you, does it? :thinking:
22 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 204th comment:
Does it get old for you to remark on how things get old for others? :wink:
22 Jul, 2009, Lobotomy wrote in the 205th comment:
David Haley said:
Does it get old for you to remark on how things get old for others? :wink:
Does it get old for you to think you're being witty in every single post you make?
22 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 206th comment:
I didn't think I was being witty at all – I thought you were making a somewhat inane comment, and was trying to say as much. And with this I shall end my contribution to this inanity. :smile:
22 Jul, 2009, Sandi wrote in the 207th comment:
Is the world of Tolkien really that dominant? It's seldom used in MUSHes, and there are more of them than any other codebase. Among DIKUs, I see many other themes as well. My game is about the Fae, and they don't die. The other game I've played recently has a Shadowrun theme, and implants abound.
I'm quoting myself from #76, there. And that followed the same basic arguments that are still going on. And it's still hard to tell just exactly what those arguments are. It seems people keep making sweeping statements, and those whose games end up in the dustpan feel compelled to reply.
Reading back, it does seem to come down to differing definitions of 'roleplay' as used in RPG.
The terms 'time spent' and 'wasted' keep coming up, and I'd like clarification there. IF you can waste time spent, that implies you're investing time towards a goal, and this has not been clarified.
Myself, I like H&S MUDS as opposed to RP MUSHes because it's fun to kill things. I do like min/maxing and optimising my characters, so the killing becomes more efficient, but as long as I'm killing things my "goal" is being reached on a regular basis. I would, however, love to understand what others are looking for in a game, as right now, no one hangs around my game, and it's getting lonely. I'm either not presenting it properly, or it has some "broken" aspect I'm completely missing. Seriously, help would be appreciated.
Sandi said:
As a general observation, I don't think one should invoke "good game design" as a crutch to support one's personal preferences in gameplay. Any comprehensive theory of game design should include all games, whether they rely on chance to give everyone an equal chance, or knowledge of game mechanics to create an interplay of tactics and strategy that strongly favors experience.
I'm quoting myself from #76, there. And that followed the same basic arguments that are still going on. And it's still hard to tell just exactly what those arguments are. It seems people keep making sweeping statements, and those whose games end up in the dustpan feel compelled to reply.
Reading back, it does seem to come down to differing definitions of 'roleplay' as used in RPG.
The terms 'time spent' and 'wasted' keep coming up, and I'd like clarification there. IF you can waste time spent, that implies you're investing time towards a goal, and this has not been clarified.
Myself, I like H&S MUDS as opposed to RP MUSHes because it's fun to kill things. I do like min/maxing and optimising my characters, so the killing becomes more efficient, but as long as I'm killing things my "goal" is being reached on a regular basis. I would, however, love to understand what others are looking for in a game, as right now, no one hangs around my game, and it's getting lonely. I'm either not presenting it properly, or it has some "broken" aspect I'm completely missing. Seriously, help would be appreciated.
22 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 208th comment:
I'm not sure it's necessarily Tolkien's world per se, but rather the notion of playing a legendary but still mortal character. This also applies to Star Wars, for example, which, while futuristic, is not really about cybernetic implants or Matrix-style memory downloads.
I don't know which post I said it in, but I still think – and I think this agrees with you – this comes down to everybody being very general about things that are rather specific, and it's very difficult to have a meaningful conversation when everybody is coming in with their own (broad) contexts, and people kind of talk past each other because we all think everybody else is coming from the same context that we are.
I don't know which post I said it in, but I still think – and I think this agrees with you – this comes down to everybody being very general about things that are rather specific, and it's very difficult to have a meaningful conversation when everybody is coming in with their own (broad) contexts, and people kind of talk past each other because we all think everybody else is coming from the same context that we are.
22 Jul, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 209th comment:
David Haley said:
But I think that the implicit thematic assumption here is so common that it's reasonable to interpret these statements in that common theme.
I don't think it's reasonable to be told that my design is broken and that my game doesn't make sense, simply because it doesn't follow some "common theme". Would you tell me that my movement and combat systems are broken because they're not the same as stock Diku?
David Haley said:
The reason I think you're "over-generalizing" is that you're taking statements made in known contexts and extending them to far larger contexts – where they were not meant to be – and then saying that they're wrong in this new context.
No, I'm taking statements made in the general context of muds and pointing out that those statements are over-generalisations that don't apply to all muds. How is it an over-generalisation to point out exceptions to someone else's over-generalisation?
David Haley said:
I agree that the larger context is more appropriate for gameplay in general, but I don't think the examples given (memory implants, skill downloads, even god-like beings) are appropriate for the absolutely dominant thematic element.
If you're making sweeping statements about muds in general, you should consider every theme, not just the dominant one. How would you feel if someone said (within the context of muds in general) that lightsabres make no sense, and are a clear indication of a broken mud design?
22 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 210th comment:
You're reading too much into things and getting too defensive. I didn't say that you were the only person talking about things in different contexts than they were intended to be heard in: in fact I think I fairly explicitly said that it's something that everybody here is doing…
It all depends on the context. If this discussion were taking place about MUDs in general but on a fantasy board, I'd say it made no sense. Here, I'd say it would be an odd thing to say given that SW MUDs are a rather common theme.
The only point I'm trying to make here is that it makes the most sense to try to read statements in the context in which they're made, not in the context in which they're easiest to disagree with.
Quote
If you're making sweeping statements about muds in general, you should consider every theme, not just the dominant one. How would you feel if someone said (within the context of muds in general) that lightsabres make no sense, and are a clear indication of a broken mud design?
It all depends on the context. If this discussion were taking place about MUDs in general but on a fantasy board, I'd say it made no sense. Here, I'd say it would be an odd thing to say given that SW MUDs are a rather common theme.
The only point I'm trying to make here is that it makes the most sense to try to read statements in the context in which they're made, not in the context in which they're easiest to disagree with.
22 Jul, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 211th comment:
David Haley said:
It all depends on the context. If this discussion were taking place about MUDs in general but on a fantasy board, I'd say it made no sense. Here, I'd say it would be an odd thing to say given that SW MUDs are a rather common theme.
Quote
If you're making sweeping statements about muds in general, you should consider every theme, not just the dominant one. How would you feel if someone said (within the context of muds in general) that lightsabres make no sense, and are a clear indication of a broken mud design?
It all depends on the context. If this discussion were taking place about MUDs in general but on a fantasy board, I'd say it made no sense. Here, I'd say it would be an odd thing to say given that SW MUDs are a rather common theme.
A bit less common than GodWars muds, actually, which is why I used lightsabres as an example.
David Haley said:
The only point I'm trying to make here is that it makes the most sense to try to read statements in the context in which they're made, not in the context in which they're easiest to disagree with.
Indeed. It seems pretty clear that the comments were made in the context of muds in general, and I get the impression that you're reading it differently because you enjoy disagreeing.
22 Jul, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 212th comment:
Well, I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore, so if there's something to be talked about please let me know, otherwise I'll wait for somebody else to chime in. :smile:
23 Jul, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 213th comment:
David Haley said:
Well, I'm not even sure what we're talking about anymore, so if there's something to be talked about please let me know, otherwise I'll wait for somebody else to chime in. :smile:
Sorry, you've completely fluffed it. This comment is about as useful as
a condom in a convent. Let me help you out:
KaVir said:
Indeed. It seems pretty clear that the comments were made in the context of muds in general, and I get the impression that you're reading it differently because you enjoy disagreeing.
No I don't.
I'm arguing against over-generalisations!
I didn't see any references to specific themes in Elanthis's posts (otherwise I wouldn't have have responded), instead his statements appeared to refer to muds in general.
I don't think it's fair to make sweeping statements like "Being allowed to just change what you are destroys the game atmosphere" without thematic context, any more than it would be to say that "Being allowed to cast spells destroys the game atmosphere". In both cases, what you're really saying is "Being allowed to perform activities that go against the internal consistency of the theme destroys the game atmosphere".