Author Topic: The Food For Thought Project  (Read 18282 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #40 on: March 18, 2009, 04:56:13 AM »

  I don't hear malice, but I do hear arrogance and certainty.

OK. 

Is certainty wrong?  Is arrogance an issue?
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 06:35:42 AM by Josh »
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #41 on: March 18, 2009, 04:57:52 AM »
Question then: in the cases you mention, was I right?

Because I usually act that way when I am right.when I am wrong I openly and completely admit it. 
It happens now and again.

I am trying to ornament my words prettily.  I am getting better at reading people, maybe my output will improve.


No in fact, you were not right. They were arguments no one could win do to the subjective nature of them

I apologize if that's true then. 

Could you provide a link?
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

veekie

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 9034
  • WARNING: Homing Miko
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #42 on: March 18, 2009, 04:39:29 PM »

  I don't hear malice, but I do hear arrogance and certainty.

OK. 

Is certainty wrong?  Is arrogance an issue?
The former is merely difficult to argue against, but nothing wrong. The latter now, inspires conflict incredibly well.

Even if they would otherwise have agreed with you.
The mind transcends the body.
It's also a little cold because of that.
Please get it a blanket.

I wish I could read your mind,
I can barely read mine.

"Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 a.m. Eastern time, August 29th. At 2:15, it begins rolling up characters."

[spoiler]
"Just what do you think the moon up in the sky is? Everyone sees that big, round shiny thing and thinks there must be something round up there, right? That's just silly. The truth is much more awesome than that. You can almost never see the real Moon, and its appearance is death to humans. You can only see the Moon when it's reflected in things. And the things it reflects in, like water or glass, can all be broken, right? Since the moon you see in the sky is just being reflected in the heavens, if you tear open the heavens it's easy to break it~"
-Ibuki Suika, on overkill

To sumbolaion diakoneto moi, basilisk ouranionon.
Epigenentheto, apoleia keraune hos timeis pteirei.
Hekatonkatis kai khiliakis astrapsato.
Khiliarkhou Astrape!
[/spoiler]

There is no higher price than 'free'.

"I won't die. I've been ordered not to die."

emissary666

  • King Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 902
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #43 on: March 18, 2009, 08:09:33 PM »
Question then: in the cases you mention, was I right?

Because I usually act that way when I am right.when I am wrong I openly and completely admit it. 
It happens now and again.

I am trying to ornament my words prettily.  I am getting better at reading people, maybe my output will improve.


No in fact, you were not right. They were arguments no one could win do to the subjective nature of them

I apologize if that's true then. 

Could you provide a link?

No need to apologize. They were subjective arguments.
I make little kids cry
Steady As A Goat
Warning: You may have already been set on fire

Bread does not need a reason

Zeke

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Bi-Curious George
  • *
  • Posts: 540
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #44 on: March 18, 2009, 08:22:23 PM »
Subjectivity is the last refuge of logical cowards.

By which I mean, people who are not interested in debate, but want only  not to lose, claim that the argument in question is subjective. There are many subjective points that can be better understood through debate. The merits of a novel or painting can be debated, even though the enjoyment of such things is subjective.
« Last Edit: March 18, 2009, 08:30:21 PM by Zeke »

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #45 on: March 18, 2009, 09:06:15 PM »
Quote
emissary666:Quote from: Josh on March 17, 2009, 10:57:52 PMQuote from: emissary666 on March 17, 2009, 09:09:51 PMQuote from: Josh on March 17, 2009, 06:28:00 PMQuestion then: in the cases you mention, was I right?Because I usually act that way when I am right.when I am wrong I openly and completely admit it.  It happens now and again.I am trying to ornament my words prettily.  I am getting better at reading people, maybe my output will improve.No in fact, you were not right. They were arguments no one could win do to the subjective nature of themI apologize if that's true then.  Could you provide a link?No need to apologize. They were subjective arguments.

Ok then in the unlikely event that I inappropriately used a subjective argument as objective, I will apologize. 

But given the nature of all avalable discussions the more likely case is that you are simply mistaken.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #46 on: March 19, 2009, 04:07:12 AM »
Subjectivity is the last refuge of logical cowards.

By which I mean, people who are not interested in debate, but want only  not to lose, claim that the argument in question is subjective. There are many subjective points that can be better understood through debate. The merits of a novel or painting can be debated, even though the enjoyment of such things is subjective.
Granted the bold part is true.  However, when the debate is framed as, frx,  'Van Gogh is a better painter than Rembrandt', there's a clear subjective bias framed as objective truth that makes logical discussion more difficult to approach, in the same way that, to recall an earlier comment from Meg, it is difficult to debate 'Cadbury makes a better dark chocolate for watching TV than Godiva', because the individual experience informing the point or event in question varies to such a large degree that quite often no amount of objective discussion will change a person's subjective opinion on the matter. 

I'd wager that in some cases, the debate takes on additional subjective weight because one of the debaters of the point is one of the podcasters, originators of BG, and moderators of the thread.  It is not far-fetched to believe that people will respond to that perceived authority figure differently in the debate than they would if debating with someone with no perceived authority relative to their own.  Some are naturally more likely to concede to authority (or appeal to it) while others instinctively push back against any perceived authority figure.   
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #47 on: March 19, 2009, 05:00:20 AM »
Subjectivity is the last refuge of logical cowards.

By which I mean, people who are not interested in debate, but want only  not to lose, claim that the argument in question is subjective. There are many subjective points that can be better understood through debate. The merits of a novel or painting can be debated, even though the enjoyment of such things is subjective.
Granted the bold part is true.  However, when the debate is framed as, frx,  'Van Gogh is a better painter than Rembrandt', there's a clear subjective bias framed as objective truth that makes logical discussion more difficult to approach, in the same way that, to recall an earlier comment from Meg, it is difficult to debate 'Cadbury makes a better dark chocolate for watching TV than Godiva', because the individual experience informing the point or event in question varies to such a large degree that quite often no amount of objective discussion will change a person's subjective opinion on the matter. 

I'd wager that in some cases, the debate takes on additional subjective weight because one of the debaters of the point is one of the podcasters, originators of BG, and moderators of the thread.  It is not far-fetched to believe that people will respond to that perceived authority figure differently in the debate than they would if debating with someone with no perceived authority relative to their own.  Some are naturally more likely to concede to authority (or appeal to it) while others instinctively push back against any perceived authority figure.   

This falls under the I don't know how so it can't be possible fallacy. 

It is like cooking, something I know well enough to talk about.  While meals and styles may vary it can be judged and evaluated in a large number of ways that are not blindly subjective.

This however begs the question.  Lets go through this thing and then you tell me if you think games can be evaluated.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Straw_Man

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #48 on: March 19, 2009, 07:04:28 AM »

  I think games can be evaluated, but from the chassis up; start with the mechanics. Discuss them, and then look for RL examples of fun, entertainment, payouts, so forth. Josh always seems to give no examples unless its insisted on, but he only speaks to a relatively small subset of gamers hes known.

  We can certainly study if people insist they had fun despite bad mechanics and perhaps isolate other factors that made the experience so. Any game is unique, a magic circle comprised of ruleset, setting, moderator and players. You will never play the same game twice even if all circumstances are similar, as a result there are several confounding variables.

  Developmental Systems Theory is a powerful paradigm in my fields of study though it's tedious to do the work, but it produces the least bias driven positivists statements in my experience. If offer that perspective if Josh or any other BG'er wants to evaluate RPG's.
"No, no, don't think, Maya." Ritsuko chided. "We will not gattai the Evas or their pilots.

Such thoughts lead inevitably to transformation sequences."

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #49 on: March 19, 2009, 07:27:04 AM »
In addition, you ought to be using economics to examine game system choice.  Evaluating opportunity costs and payoffs is exactly what you're trying to approach.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #50 on: March 19, 2009, 08:23:33 AM »

  I think games can be evaluated, but from the chassis up; start with the mechanics. Discuss them, and then look for RL examples of fun, entertainment, payouts, so forth. Josh always seems to give no examples unless its insisted on, but he only speaks to a relatively small subset of gamers hes known.
Starting with the mechanics is too far in.

What have I said that needs an example where I did not give one? Because I give examples all the time, when needed.

Quote
  We can certainly study if people insist they had fun despite bad mechanics and perhaps isolate other factors that made the experience so. Any game is unique, a magic circle comprised of ruleset, setting, moderator and players. You will never play the same game twice even if all circumstances are similar, as a result there are several confounding variables.

  Developmental Systems Theory is a powerful paradigm in my fields of study though it's tedious to do the work, but it produces the least bias driven positivists statements in my experience. If offer that perspective if Josh or any other BG'er wants to evaluate RPG's.

In addition, you ought to be using economics to examine game system choice.  Evaluating opportunity costs and payoffs is exactly what you're trying to approach.

I am of course amused when people point out things I not only already know but also talk about.

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

The_Mad_Linguist

  • Organ Grinder
  • *****
  • Posts: 8780
  • Simulated Thing
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #51 on: March 19, 2009, 08:52:41 AM »
How, exactly, does saying "switching to a new system is a nuisance" is "erroneous" factor into an economic analysis?  You're clearly neglecting the price of changing systems.
Linguist, Mad, Unique, none of these things am I
My custom class: The Priest of the Unseen Host
Planetouched Handbook
Want to improve your character?  Then die.

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #52 on: March 19, 2009, 08:59:20 AM »
I have to add something a little more about a fundamental misunderstanding that some people have here.  

Most of the things we talk about are not things we have never seen.  Not only have we seen them over and over we have discussed them on message boards and in person over and over.  I have read everything I can find about these topics.  I have tried these things out experimentally.  

And don't get me wrong, people offer new insight on these ideas all the time.  But there are a few traits they share:

1) Interest in the idea presented. You need to read the ideas presented and actually try to learn what they mean.
2) Talking about the topic at hand and commenting not just on that topic but at the specific instance of that topic
3) Taking the ideas and implementing them before judging their efficacy.  

to restate:

You can't know what you don't understand
Participate in the discussion we are in
You fail at everything you don't try

Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #53 on: March 19, 2009, 09:01:00 AM »
How, exactly, does saying "switching to a new system is a nuisance" is "erroneous" factor into an economic analysis?  You're clearly neglecting the price of changing systems.

Really.

Ask me in the right thread then.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Straw_Man

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #54 on: March 19, 2009, 09:08:22 AM »


I am of course amused when people point out things I not only already know but also talk about.

  It's comment like these that make you seem a jackass Josh. We're spending time here in discussion without disparagement, and that statement comes across as bloody condescending. If you are aware of it you obviously don't seem to bring it to the table enough that repliers on your threads notice. And if your aware but not choosing to use it in these threads, let me clarify, I did not take the dip into Mindbender.

  And how many systems have novel mechanics really? It's either a percentile, d20 or d6 and then you throw in twists. It's the twists that we measure, and I doubt there are that many games which have them. D&D, Palladium, and GURPS don't have anything beyond mechanics for building character, in-game interactions and experience based leveling.

  However poorly White Wolf does it there's an attempt at a roleplaying mechanic in game, which I'd call a twist in this parlance. Discuss, contrast and decide. How  far in is that? Is it really that much work for one mechanic? Though I haven't played it Burning Wheel has at least two novel mechanics, stage based gameplay and the Worldburner. Is it that much effort to discuss them?
"No, no, don't think, Maya." Ritsuko chided. "We will not gattai the Evas or their pilots.

Such thoughts lead inevitably to transformation sequences."

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #55 on: March 19, 2009, 09:45:19 AM »


I am of course amused when people point out things I not only already know but also talk about.

  It's comment like these that make you seem a jackass Josh. We're spending time here in discussion without disparagement, and that statement comes across as bloody condescending. If you are aware of it you obviously don't seem to bring it to the table enough that repliers on your threads notice. And if your aware but not choosing to use it in these threads, let me clarify, I did not take the dip into Mindbender.
Hmmm.  Well.

Quote
 And how many systems have novel mechanics really? It's either a percentile, d20 or d6 and then you throw in twists. It's the twists that we measure, and I doubt there are that many games which have them. D&D, Palladium, and GURPS don't have anything beyond mechanics for building character, in-game interactions and experience based leveling.
Lets start with Prime time adventures(cards) and dread(jenga) aces and eights (dice+card+overlay) Spirt of the century (fudge dice), Grim(compare levels) and gumshoe(spend points) Misspent youth(craps).  Then lets really talk about the shift that are narrative based games, games where players set facts, there's aspects and there is burning wheels novel fight mechanics.

What games have novel mechanics?  All the good ones.


Quote
However poorly White Wolf does it there's an attempt at a roleplaying mechanic in game, which I'd call a twist in this parlance. Discuss, contrast and decide. How  far in is that? Is it really that much work for one mechanic? Though I haven't played it Burning Wheel has at least two novel mechanics, stage based gameplay and the Worldburner. Is it that much effort to discuss them?

You live in a cave and I am trying to explain what the surface looks like.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

Straw_Man

  • Hong Kong
  • ****
  • Posts: 1145
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #56 on: March 19, 2009, 09:54:32 AM »

  I may live in a cave, thanks for that ad hominem btw. but I am too poor to afford to invest in games that wont be played. But if a mechanic is presented to me i may not be quite as bright as you, but pretty please sir, I'll make the effort. Oh btw, I believe that I shall take your stance on disparagement, bear with me though, I haven't your practice.

  Good games have interesting mechanics, fantastic. Lets talk about them. How many separate mechanics make them different. One core mechanic. an interesting roleplay mechanic, something a social mechanic like Gumshoe? I'd rather, and I believe i speak for some of this thread, hear the data and try to understand it, than to take anyone else's word for it.

  Oh, and I misspoke, D&D introduced Prestige Classes, which i suppose could be taken as an interesting mechanic in that genre of games.
"No, no, don't think, Maya." Ritsuko chided. "We will not gattai the Evas or their pilots.

Such thoughts lead inevitably to transformation sequences."

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #57 on: March 19, 2009, 11:24:36 AM »

  I may live in a cave, thanks for that ad hominem btw.
metaphor.  Look it up.

Quote
but I am too poor to afford to invest in games that wont be played. But if a mechanic is presented to me i may not be quite as bright as you, but pretty please sir, I'll make the effort. Oh btw, I believe that I shall take your stance on disparagement, bear with me though, I haven't your practice.
I have never been able to afford a jet ski.  And that is why you don't see jet ski reviews.

Quote
  Good games have interesting mechanics, fantastic. Lets talk about them. How many separate mechanics make them different. One core mechanic. an interesting roleplay mechanic, something a social mechanic like Gumshoe? I'd rather, and I believe i speak for some of this thread, hear the data and try to understand it, than to take anyone else's word for it.
That's what I am doing.  If you don't know how to make a pie, don't yell at me when I start rolling out dough.

Maybe I should be a little more patient. 

But you need to look at it from my angle.  I don't need to share this with you.  I am providing you a service and you are being a whiny brat. 

I'm a jerk.  fine. we've heard it. lets move on. 
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009

InnaBinder

  • Grape ape
  • *****
  • Posts: 1610
  • OnnaTable
    • Okay - - Your Turn: Monte Cook's Message Board
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #58 on: March 19, 2009, 01:45:51 PM »
Quote
This falls under the I don't know how so it can't be possible fallacy
I'd call it the 'I've never seen it successfully demonstrated so it looks impossible from here' fallacy.  I'll leave it at.
Winning an argument on the internet is like winning in the Special Olympics.  You won, but you're still retarded.

I made a Handbook!?

Josh

  • Brilliant Gameologist
  • Grape ape
  • *
  • Posts: 1835
    • Email
Re: The Food For Thought Project
« Reply #59 on: March 19, 2009, 04:42:02 PM »
Quote
This falls under the I don't know how so it can't be possible fallacy
I'd call it the 'I've never seen it successfully demonstrated so it looks impossible from here' fallacy.  I'll leave it at.

Mine is an actual example of a fallacy.

Like the cave statement.  It is an actual thing.
Ennies Nominees - Best Podcast 2009