OOTS #844 - The Discussion Thread

[Forikroder]

Premise which I do not grant: "The belief that whether or not one is free to do as s/he pleases even in the ways a paladin would restrict, is more important than whether one's internal organs are internal, is rational."

"give me Liberty or give me Death"

do you disagree?

[jere7my]

A doll is a toy, playing pretend with said doll is play (its also what you are doing in the sims), Coming up with a bunch of rules about how your doll can beat another doll if it rolls a 5or 6 on a die is a game. Which, is what you are doing when you play an RPG. Take beat to mean overcome, the same concept works with an attack roll and a diplomacy check.

I haven't played The Sims, but I believe there are rules and conditions there too — you have to keep your person happy, fed, socially active, etc. I don't see a lot of daylight between that and a typical RPG, honestly.

So what is Gallaga? You shot a bunch of spaceships to clear a level, and when you cleared all the levels you started back at level 1. Thats a Pinball machine. What's a pinball machine, then? Technically, its a form of gambling, except at some point people decided it was wrong to give people money for being skilled at pinball, and instead they gave them extra balls. You decide what that means.

I'm not going to touch this, which seems to be leading to "Ms. Pac-Man isn't a game, it's gambling," after which the next step would be "This isn't a tree, it's my Aunt Hester, and it's watching me."

I think we've determined that your definition of "game" is "thing in which the objective is to win," in which case your assertion that "there isn't a game in the world whose objective isn't to win" becomes "there isn't a thing in the world in which the objective is to win whose objective isn't to win", which is a lovely tautology that I hope satisfies your personal winning conditions for this thread.

[Porthos]

Late to the party as I was out, so apologies for not quoting posts, but The Sims is most definately a game. Not even a question here.

What it is, is a Simulation Game.

And it is exceedingly possible to have a sim in fact not have a winning point. Or even any winning conditions at all.

I mentioned, admittedly slightly tongue in cheek, the Game of Life early in the thread. But that is also defined as a game in the wikipedia article. In many ways, it was probably the first computer simulation game out there.

Quite frankly, if you are going to say that Simulation Games are in fact not games, then neither are Role Playing Games. In many ways, a Role Play Game is simply another version of a Simulation Game. Just one, usually, with more codified rules.

[Particle_Man]

You...really have trouble with the fact that you, not Rich, are the one whose approach to D&D morality involves house-ruling, don't you?

Your question is unanswerable, because it hinges on an incorrect premise.

If I were to rephrase it to eliminate the incorrect premise and get something answerable, one possible answer would be, "Has Rich made the same changes to the drow that I have so that every one of them is evil, or are somewhere between 50% and 99% of them still evil in the OotS world, as they are in D&D?"

Here's another rephrase: "Have we seen a single Drow in the webcomic that is not evil?" So far, the % of drow we have seen in the comic that are evil is, I believe, 100%.

Since it seems that Rich is concerned to show that not all races and monsters with "evil" in their monster entry are evil, I imagine he will will return to this issue before the webcomic is over, since that was one of the few times I did hear in real life about "racism in D&D", namely that it seemed racist that the black-skinned elves were the evil ones and the fair-skinned elves were the good ones, given real-world sensibilities about skin colour and racism.

[Porthos]

One last bit on this and then I shall bow out (since it is kinda Off Topic ):

I know it's Wikipedia, but it seems like a good enough stopping point for me:

Game

A game is structured playing, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more often an expression of aesthetic or ideological elements. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports/games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong, solitaire, or some video games).

Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational, or psychological role.

Attested as early as 2600 BC,[1][2] games are a universal part of human experience and present in all cultures. The Royal Game of Ur, Senet, and Mancala are some of the oldest known games.[3]

First bit of first sentence bolded for emphasis.

That intro paragraph really does seem to cover everything about the word "game" where is it found. The second paragraph mentions "goals, rules, challenge, and interaction" which would seem to cover most aspects of "winning", but leave room for games where there is no winning aspect.

Quite frankly, the above definition of the word "game" seems to suit how it is used in the English language far more than "something that has a winning condition". In fact, if pressed, I'd say that latter quote is a far better definiton of the word Sport, rather than Game.

======

Here's another rephrase: "Have we seen a single Drow in the webcomic that is not evil?" So far, the % of drow we have seen in the comic that are evil is, I believe, 100%.

A good statistician knows the folly of Small Sample Sizes. And I believe it is kinda hard to get a sample size smaller than one.

[zimmerwald1915]

Premise which I do not grant: "The belief that whether or not one is free to do as s/he pleases even in the ways a paladin would restrict, is more important than whether one's internal organs are internal, is rational."

Forgive me if I misunderstand. But are you really saying that it is more right for a paladin, by virtue of being a paladin and upholding the codes that paladins do, to kill someone than it is for anyone else to expect that their lives will remain unpoliced? Because that seems quite uncharacteristic of you.

[ti'esar]

A good statistician knows the folly of Small Sample Sizes. And I believe it is kinda hard to get a sample size smaller than one.

Actually, it's two (though that's still a small sample size).

[Porthos]

Actually, it's two (though that's still a small sample size).

Thanks, I'd forgotten about that second one.

[rbetieh]

It means that you've decided the definition of "a game" involves winning. And if it's a game without winning, then it's "a toy." And you're prepared to keep repeating these definitions, even though you have no support for them, until everyone else gives up.

No, it means I was hoping to lead people to come to the conclusion that a game like Galaga was indeed a game because it's at its roots, all forms of gambling are.

By the way, I wanted to express my admiration for your uncanny ability to insult people without breaking any forum rules, you are a true master of your craft, I sincerly bow to you.

[Particle_Man]

A good statistician knows the folly of Small Sample Sizes. And I believe it is kinda hard to get a sample size smaller than one.

Lucky I am bad statistician then.

But frankly it doesn't matter, since it is not a real world and Rich can choose his sample for narrative reasons, as opposed to reasons of statistical purity. The point I was making is that if Rich wants to address this whole "race/species as alignment" issue in his web-comic, one way he could do it would be to take a look at the idea of "black-skinned drow as always evil" (since that reflects quite closely some real-world racist ideas, as opposed to "green-skinned goblins are always evil", which doesn't as much since there are no naturally green-skinned humans that I know of in the real world), and he has not done that yet. Maybe he will later.

And note that none of that is a critique of his comic. I like his comic and will keep reading it. Just as I will keep running and playing D&D "my way".

[t209]

I haven't played The Sims, but I believe there are rules and conditions there too — you have to keep your person happy, fed, socially active, etc. I don't see a lot of daylight between that and a typical RPG, honestly.

Actually, an player of sims 2 and 3, you can do whatever you want after you fulfill their needs (or ignore it and let them die).

[Calenestel]

Not touching the Girard vs Soon debate (too close to "morally justified" debates which are crazy (since "morally justifiable" and "within my alignment" isn't the same thing and since it's not allowed)) or "what's the definition of a game"-debate (since english isn't my native tongue and I prefer not to throw myself into any discussino where I'm likely to make a donkey out of myself (not that I don't do that accidentally in other debates but still)).

But as for the Giant not showing drow as anything but evil (so far)...
Aside from the fact that the game's far from over yet and there's still plenty of time... I don't think he really needs to do it.

The Giant has never made the comic it's only goal to challenge how we (all the DnD gamers) handle alignment. It's been part of it, but it's also been to challenge about any other stereotype and misconception about the game (not to mention minor things like telling a captivating and hillarious story ).

Challenging the misconceptions about evil races is something he's done well without introducing any good aligned drow. I have no doubt they exist in the OotSverse, but so far they've not been important to the strip and throwing them in only to show "Hey! Good Drow are here too!" doesn't really add to the story, y'know?
Instead he's used the important one (Z) to poke fun at the frequency that good aligned drow rebels crop up within gamer groups, litterature and (shudder) fanfic. Behold!

While there's some Unfortunate Implications with the very existence of the drow, it's been adequately discussed in other media, even if the Giant chooses not to. And I don't see that he has any obligations to do otherwise.

(Edited for spelling and other improvments of the... "fluidity" of the text.)

[Kish]

Forgive me if I misunderstand. But are you really saying that it is more right for a paladin, by virtue of being a paladin and upholding the codes that paladins do, to kill someone than it is for anyone else to expect that their lives will remain unpoliced? Because that seems quite uncharacteristic of you.

No. I am saying that the concept "a paladin is no better than a blackguard," supported by "nothing is more important than that people are free to do as they please," requires believing that ANY restrictions on someone's freedom--even the mildest restrictions which the mildest paladin would support--are as bad as brutally killing that person. Because that's part of the definition of a blackguard: A stone-cold murderer.

If, and I stress that there is no evidence of this, but if, theoretically, Girard was at the point of believing that "the right to rip the lungs out of anyone I want" trumped "the right to keep my lungs inside my body," then rationality was so far behind him that if he had looked backward he would not have been able to detect it with his most powerful divination spell.

[Particle_Man]

But as for the Giant not showing drow as anything but evil (so far)...
Aside from the fact that the game's far from over yet and there's still plenty of time... I don't think he really needs to do it.

The Giant has never made the comic it's only goal to challenge how we (all the DnD gamers) handle alignment. It's been part of it, but it's also been to challenge about any other stereotype and misconception about the game (not to mention minor things like telling a captivating and hillarious story ).

Challenging the misconceptions about evil races is something he's done well without introducing any good aligned drow. I have no doubt they exist in the OotSverse, but so far they've not been important to the strip and throwing them in only to show "Hey! Good Drow are here too!" doesn't really add to the story, y'know?
Instead he's used the important one (Z) to poke fun at the frequency that good aligned drow rebels crop up within gamer groups, litterature and (shudder) fanfic. Behold!

While there's some Unfortunate Implications with the very existence of the drow, it's been adequately discussed in other media, even if the Giant chooses not to. And I don't see that he has any obligations to do otherwise.

(Edited for spelling and other improvments of the... "fluidity" of the text.)

I agree with the above, mostly. I certainly don't think Rich is obliged to do anything (well, except keep his Kickstarter promises). I am glad he makes an entertaining story. It just seemed like an obvious place to go if he wants to hammer the point home some for the apparently oblivious people, like myself, that did not "get" that Rich was so against "kill the goblin children and retain paladinhood" style roleplaying, if he has this intention. If he doesn't have that intention, or doesn't care that some people, like myself, won't "get it" just from reading his webcomic (and not looking at the forums here) that is fine too. Perhaps the people, like myself, that didn't "get it" wouldn't be convinced by further efforts on his part anyhow, so he may be best off directing his energies as he does.

[Mr. Pants]

Three gates down, two to go...

[Math_Mage]

Three gates down, two to go...

You know, you don't have to bump all these threads with one-line remarks every day. Just sayin.

[oppyu]

In fact, some may prefer that you don't at all.

[ti'esar]

In fact, some may prefer that you don't at all.

Definitely.