thread: 2006-01-13 : Push and pull aside, co-ownership
On 2006-01-13, Vincent wrote:
This is in answer to Mo's and Levi's marginalia a couple comments up. This is interesting stuff, the frustration we each feel; I think I'm getting a handle on it and I may make a post about it soon, hopefully a more considered post than the two of me one.
But for now.
Mo, you've done an excellent thing: you've taken my illustrative sliver and imagined for it a whole-game context in which it's fun and functional. That's perfect. That's requisite to discussion.
Everybody who's here and participating needs to do exactly that. It doesn't matter whether you imagine the same whole-game context that I do, or Levi does, or anybody does; what matters is that we each think about it and talk about it as fun and functional.
Contrast this with invoking the player who wouldn't like it and won't try it. We can all do that too - we all know that player - but invoking her won't help us explore an idea's potential or understand its ramifications.
Is this helping?
This makes MT go "OK"
So the deliniation is: there's a conceptual game and you can feel free to design concepts and context to aid your discussion of theory, but there's no actual game, so there is no constraint on the example but that which you impose on it for the sake of discussion? "Don't tell me that Joe Gamer can't/won't/doesn't, tell me ways to apply it so Joe Gamer could?"
