Unwitting Pawn
2010-03-11, 06:06 PM
This gets back, in my opinion, to the conceptual framework that the player has about what the game should be (or what gameplay should be like).
To you or I, it may seem like their just not playing the system the way it is meant to be played. However, the flip side would be, the rules don't say they can't play like that, and so the system is flawed if it allows such destructive game play.
I would argue that almost any RPG can be abused like this, but the manner in which it is achieved is different, and some systems may make it easier than others. Whether or not you feel that a system should try to restrain certain behaviors and encourage others, that's subjective. I think the real problem is (and I'm guilty of this), is that it is difficult for people to identify what preconditions they apply to a specific RPG. Within a particular set of preconditions, all these arguments will be objective. It is the preconditions that are ultimately subjective, and therefore color the entire argument. ****** I think I'm going way too deep here.
Haha, don't worry - we'll try and keep up! :smallwink:
I can understand what you're saying. It displays your empathy for other people's positions. We should all try and accept the right of someone else to feel differently (especially over something as ultimately inconsequential to us, as how they spend their free time), so that's all good.
That said, I still think there is a flaw in the logic behind that opposing opinion. I don't know whether the flaw is in the opposing opinion itself, or just in the way that you're representing it, but IMO it's there. I'll repeat part of what you said earlier to help me explain:
However, the flip side would be, the rules don't say they can't play like that, and so the system is flawed if it allows such destructive game play.
Once again, I don't know if this is actually the opposing opinion, or just your interpretation of it...But the flaw in this argument is that if "they" recognise that playing in a certain way is destructive/bad/negative/whatever, then not only is it their right to feel that, but it's also their right not to play that way. If they are self-aware enough to recognise this behaviour, then they should be self-aware enough to recognise that the responsibility to change that behaviour is theirs. Rather than the responsibility of the game to prevent it.
As I've stressed before, if everyone enjoyed what they were doing, then this wouldn't apply. Likewise, if they didn't enjoy it, but conversely didn't blame the game for allowing a behaviour that they didn't enjoy, then that would be fine too. It's the apparent simultaneous self-awareness and abdication of responsibility that I found myself objecting to.
To you or I, it may seem like their just not playing the system the way it is meant to be played. However, the flip side would be, the rules don't say they can't play like that, and so the system is flawed if it allows such destructive game play.
I would argue that almost any RPG can be abused like this, but the manner in which it is achieved is different, and some systems may make it easier than others. Whether or not you feel that a system should try to restrain certain behaviors and encourage others, that's subjective. I think the real problem is (and I'm guilty of this), is that it is difficult for people to identify what preconditions they apply to a specific RPG. Within a particular set of preconditions, all these arguments will be objective. It is the preconditions that are ultimately subjective, and therefore color the entire argument. ****** I think I'm going way too deep here.
Haha, don't worry - we'll try and keep up! :smallwink:
I can understand what you're saying. It displays your empathy for other people's positions. We should all try and accept the right of someone else to feel differently (especially over something as ultimately inconsequential to us, as how they spend their free time), so that's all good.
That said, I still think there is a flaw in the logic behind that opposing opinion. I don't know whether the flaw is in the opposing opinion itself, or just in the way that you're representing it, but IMO it's there. I'll repeat part of what you said earlier to help me explain:
However, the flip side would be, the rules don't say they can't play like that, and so the system is flawed if it allows such destructive game play.
Once again, I don't know if this is actually the opposing opinion, or just your interpretation of it...But the flaw in this argument is that if "they" recognise that playing in a certain way is destructive/bad/negative/whatever, then not only is it their right to feel that, but it's also their right not to play that way. If they are self-aware enough to recognise this behaviour, then they should be self-aware enough to recognise that the responsibility to change that behaviour is theirs. Rather than the responsibility of the game to prevent it.
As I've stressed before, if everyone enjoyed what they were doing, then this wouldn't apply. Likewise, if they didn't enjoy it, but conversely didn't blame the game for allowing a behaviour that they didn't enjoy, then that would be fine too. It's the apparent simultaneous self-awareness and abdication of responsibility that I found myself objecting to.