Gaming philosophy conundra

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by Lovewyrm

So yeah, I myself, in regular speech, call many a non game game too.
It's probably quite human, too (perhaps a point of philosophy, too, even if probably off topic. It's like how we say "stupid computer" and other anthropomorphisms for things that don't even have a mind)

One thing to keep in mind, and that I suspect Bill was alluding with his reference to Wittgenstein, is that what a word means is largely defined by how a word is used, rather than what the dictionary definition is. Which is sometimes annoying, seeing as it results in things like "literally" being used to mean "figuratively," but is the way language works. It's not like the sound "game" has any intrinsic meaning, anymore than the code making up a bitcoin has any intrinsic value, so the meaning of the former can shift based on how people use it and the value of the latter can shift in the same way.

Originally Posted by Lovewyrm

Like when I added up there that flying with a ship in EVE from station to station to pick up new missions, is not really gameplay but more like switching pages in a book.

Last time I read a paper book, there wasn't any risk of getting blown up by gatecampers from turning the page. I guess there was a small risk of a papercut, but with digital books even that's removed.

Also, the delay in switching stations, systems, etc, actually has a function. Several, really. Off the top of my head, in addition to adding a touch (or sometimes much more than just a "touch") of risk to the equation, the fact you can't just "fast travel" adds a lot of nuance to EVE markets. Sure, you can buy this item from that station for cheaper than this station, but it's far away or requires you to travel through lowsec (or maybe it's far away if going through highsec, but close by if you're willing to go through lowsec); maybe you could sell that item for a better price in Jita, but it's 30 jumps away. Instant teleportation would mean you might as well just have one global market for the whole of New Eden, and would also get rid of the entire purpose of courier contracts and the like. That delay, while a bit annoying (although given EVE Online's beautiful visuals, at least it's generally a scenic trip), adds so much to the game, it really wouldn't be the same without it.

But I digress...

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Varyon

One thing to keep in mind, and that I suspect Bill was alluding with his reference to Wittgenstein, is that what a word means is largely defined by how a word is used, rather than what the dictionary definition is. Which is sometimes annoying, seeing as it results in things like "literally" being used to mean "figuratively," but is the way language works. It's not like the sound "game" has any intrinsic meaning, anymore than the code making up a bitcoin has any intrinsic value, so the meaning of the former can shift based on how people use it and the value of the latter can shift in the same way.

Actually, not quite that. I think a good dictionary definition at least attempts to capture all the different ways a word is used. But that means a good definition will have several subentries that capture the various partly overlapping uses.

It seems to me that what Wittgenstein was warning about was more the tendency of philosophers to come up with their own definitions, often based on theoretical speculations, and then to argue as if the use of those words in other situations reflected, or was meant to reflect, what the philosophers had come up with. That has produced a tremendous amount of nonsense.

[Varyon]

Originally Posted by whswhs

Actually, not quite that. I think a good dictionary definition at least attempts to capture all the different ways a word is used. But that means a good definition will have several subentries that capture the various partly overlapping uses.

It seems to me that what Wittgenstein was warning about was more the tendency of philosophers to come up with their own definitions, often based on theoretical speculations, and then to argue as if the use of those words in other situations reflected, or was meant to reflect, what the philosophers had come up with. That has produced a tremendous amount of nonsense.

Ah, my apologies for misinterpreting you, although it seems like I was roughly on the right track, just put the emphasis on the wrong syllable, as it were. And, yeah, people insisting their personal definition of a word was the One True Way without even considering someone else might be using it differently (either simply using a different dictionary definition, or using a rather non-standard definition) has been the basis for many a silly argument, which is why anytime someone I'm having a discussion (argumentative or otherwise) uses a word in a way that seems strange, I try to figure out what definition they are using (which can be as simple as asking "What exactly do you mean when you say n? I typically define n as <working definition>, is that the way you're using it here or do you mean something else?" or similar). Also, the whole "repeat their statement back, but in your own words" trick can help, as if you're on the wrong track, it is much more clear that you're simply misunderstanding someone.

[Lovewyrm]

Just posting to acknowledge the points made. I initially had a longer post but it was full of further scenarios and I didn't want to stretch the point any further.

[ericthered]

Which is the true character: the one written down on the sheet or the one that exists in the mind of the player?

[ravenfish]

Originally Posted by Varyon

Last time I read a paper book, there wasn't any risk of getting blown up by gatecampers from turning the page.

"It's like a book, only you might get blown up" isn't exactly selling me on Eve here. (Actually, on reflection, there's probably a market for "extreme reading". At the very least, you could make a good Sesame Street sketch along those lines.)

EDIT: On topic: Could Gary Gygax make a ruleset so complex he couldn't play it?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Anders

I am a DM who's writing the perfect D&D campaign. Each time I'm almost finished WotC release a new edition and I have to start over. Am I happy?

Actually, I think this makes you Sisyphus.

[Agemegos]

Originally Posted by whswhs

It seems to me that what Wittgenstein was warning about was more the tendency of philosophers to come up with their own definitions, often based on theoretical speculations, and then to argue as if the use of those words in other situations reflected, or was meant to reflect, what the philosophers had come up with. That has produced a tremendous amount of nonsense.

Mathematicians are guilty of that too. For example, John von Neuman’s definition of “game” has been influential, but would not include tennis nor pretend-to-be, which were definitely called games before.

For another example, consider how botanists’ co-optation of “fruit” and “nut” to be technical terms have resulted in fatuous arguments over whether cucumbers are fruit and walnuts are nuts.

[Icelander]

Originally Posted by ericthered

Which is the true character: the one written down on the sheet or the one that exists in the mind of the player?

Neither.

Or, at least, outside some kind of solo play, the audience consists of more than one person.

And the true character is the one the audience experiences.

[Anders]

"The GM is dead" - the philosophy that states that how the players approach a problem (e.g., a puzzle or a trap) has nothing to do with how the GM thought they would.