... I notice that everybody who has been able to do it comes from some sort of theoretical background from what i've gathered (English, Gaming, even Lunar pointed out an anecdote of his questioning of grammar).
This isn't a bad thing, not everyone can do it about everything. I know when i watch a film i see it completely different to everybody else sitting in that theatre with me because i step back from my watching of it with the eyes of a studier and theorist of film. Heck, when i talk about the film afterwards with my other half i have to try and avoid describing it a certain way because she'll turn around and go 'so, you didn't like it?' because her mind doesn't work like mine does. This is the joys of being a part of the human race; everybody is different and its why i love you all.
-Kraik
When I read that, all I could think of is Professor Frink when he plays with the kid's toy. Frink: Mwa-hey, bwa-hai. The compression and expansion of the longitudinal waves cause the erratic oscillation, you can see it there, of the neighbouring particles. A little girl attracts Professor Frink's attention Frink: Yes, what is it, what, what is it? Little Girl: Can I play with it?Frink: No you can't play with it, you won't enjoy it on as many levels as I do... Mm-hai bw-ha whoa-hoa. The colours children. Mwa-ha-lee
In other words: I think your selection bias is showing.
If someone was to ask you. "What's the point of a football game?" You would not answer: "To have fun"
If someone was to ask you. "What's the point of a poker game?" You would not answer: "To have fun"
If someone was to ask you. "What's the point of a fighting video game?" You would not answer: "To have fun"
I'd answer 'To have fun' to all of those questions. You are mistaking your answers for an universal reply
Please read more of the thread...or re-read the original post. You are not understanding what you are reading.
It is impossible for the point of a game to be to "have fun" as there is no way to codify this into rules or to structure a game around such a thing.
I answered your questions. You were wrong when you told me what I wouldn't answer.
My disagreeing with you doesn't equal not understanding your words. That you think something, doesn't make it so.
*sigh*
Here I'll just repost what I wrote to someone else not one page ago...as I've re-written it in various ways across about...30 pages...
I was not responding because I do not believe you have read enough of the thread...or read it well enough...to understand what I am saying. I do not speak regarding "winning" in the thread except to say that D&D has no defined win condition other than, maybe maybe, character retirement.
So you're understanding of what I am saying is flawed.
This is not about winning. It is about playing.
Additionally, D&D is a competitive game in that a team of players compete against challenges put before them (or that they seek out) and try to overcome them. That it is not player vs player competitive is irrelevant.
As was pointed out in the thread, Marvel Ultimate Alliance is a similar style of game where it is competitive and the players attempt to overcome supervillains to win. Now, if you were playing Marvel Ultimate alliance or had just booted it up and your friend, having never seen it before, asked you "Oh that looks cool. What's the point of this game?" would you answer "To have fun"? And if you did, how would you not expect your friend to look at you as if you were A) an idiot or B) messing with him?
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
The design objective of the D&D system is to simulate a world of heroic fantasy and allow players to immerse themselves in a virtual life in said world.
It is a simulation game, not a competitive game. Thus, your football/poker/fighting game analogies are largely irrelevant, and your argument that there must be a universal 'point' to D&D beyond engaging in a fantasy world is flawed.
As in real life, any other objectives are defined by the players. You're going to need to either keep ignoring this or abandon your current argument. As someone that professes to be on a journey to enlightenment, it's an important choice. Perhaps the true Litmus test...
I was not responding because I do not believe you have read enough of the thread...or read it well enough...to understand what I am saying. I do not speak regarding "winning" in the thread except to say that D&D has no defined win condition other than, maybe maybe, character retirement.
So you're understanding of what I am saying is flawed.
This is not about winning. It is about playing.
Additionally, D&D is a competitive game in that a team of players compete against challenges put before them (or that they seek out) and try to overcome them. That it is not player vs player competitive is irrelevant.
As was pointed out in the thread, Marvel Ultimate Alliance is a similar style of game where it is competitive and the players attempt to overcome supervillains to win. Now, if you were playing Marvel Ultimate alliance or had just booted it up and your friend, having never seen it before, asked you "Oh that looks cool. What's the point of this game?" would you answer "To have fun"? And if you did, how would you not expect your friend to look at you as if you were A) an idiot or B) messing with him?
I don't remember any post where I disagreed with the premise that the 'point' of D&D isn't fun. It's a fairly simple concept and the only people disagreeing are those that have been confused by your (deliberately?) vague terminology. What I disagree with, is your conclusion that D&D has some other 'point' that can be easily quantified:
When one accepts that Dungeons & Dragons as a game has actual goals and an actual point, things become much easier to understand and much more straight forward to discuss. Success in Dungeons & Dragons can generally be easily tracked via level, wealth and various other methods of influence in the game world.
The only universal goal in D&D is to tell a story. Levels, wealth and influence are only measures of success or progress insofar as the story dictates.
So how do you measure success when the goal is to tell a story? It's far from easy, but you could start by asking "how much fun was the story?"
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The only universal goal in D&D is to tell a story. Levels, wealth and influence are only measures of success or progress insofar as the story dictates.
So how do you measure success when the goal is to tell a story? It's far from easy, but you could start by asking "how much fun was the story?"
Interesting. So if a group of kids use D&D to set up encounters and play through them in dungeons, one after another, with no story or narrative but with leveling and magic items and monster slaying they are, necessarily, not fulfilling the goal of D&D according to you?
Kinda invalidates the very roots of the game...doesn't it?
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />The only universal goal in D&D is to tell a story. Levels, wealth and influence are only measures of success or progress insofar as the story dictates.
So how do you measure success when the goal is to tell a story? It's far from easy, but you could start by asking "how much fun was the story?"
Interesting. So if a group of kids use D&D to set up encounters and play through them in dungeons, one after another, with no story or narrative but with leveling and magic items and monster slaying they are, necessarily, not fulfilling the goal of D&D according to you?
Kinda invalidates the very roots of the game...doesn't it?
I'm fairly familiar with the roots of the game, having played since BECMI/AD&D; and we were still telling stories. As are your group of kids; it's impossible to play D&D without creating a narrative.
If someone was to ask you. "What's the point of a football game?" You would not answer: "To have fun"
If someone was to ask you. "What's the point of a poker game?" You would not answer: "To have fun"
If someone was to ask you. "What's the point of a fighting video game?" You would not answer: "To have fun"
I'd answer 'To have fun' to all of those questions. You are mistaking your answers for an universal reply
Please read more of the thread...or re-read the original post. You are not understanding what you are reading.
It is impossible for the point of a game to be to "have fun" as there is no way to codify this into rules or to structure a game around such a thing.
I answered your questions. You were wrong when you told me what I wouldn't answer.
My disagreeing with you doesn't equal not understanding your words. That you think something, doesn't make it so.
*sigh*
Here I'll just repost what I wrote to someone else not one page ago...as I've re-written it in various ways across about...30 pages...
I was not responding because I do not believe you have read enough of the thread...or read it well enough...to understand what I am saying. I do not speak regarding "winning" in the thread except to say that D&D has no defined win condition other than, maybe maybe, character retirement.
So you're understanding of what I am saying is flawed.
This is not about winning. It is about playing.
Additionally, D&D is a competitive game in that a team of players compete against challenges put before them (or that they seek out) and try to overcome them. That it is not player vs player competitive is irrelevant.
As was pointed out in the thread, Marvel Ultimate Alliance is a similar style of game where it is competitive and the players attempt to overcome supervillains to win. Now, if you were playing Marvel Ultimate alliance or had just booted it up and your friend, having never seen it before, asked you "Oh that looks cool. What's the point of this game?" would you answer "To have fun"? And if you did, how would you not expect your friend to look at you as if you were A) an idiot or B) messing with him?
Maybe you would do less sighing, if you did less inappropriate copying and pasting of replies. Not everyone is the same. Accept this. Your copypasta didn't apply to what I have been saying. What did I say about winning? Competition?
I see your complaining about having to rewrite similar stuff again and again as amusing; like your reply to me, it was off tangent to what you were actually replying about.
You can stick fingers in your ears and shout 'they aint listening to me' all you want, but your standard of reading is worse.
You attempted to answer for everyone reading your posts in a set of staged questions, a poor debate trick. I wouldn't answer those question in the manner decreed by you.
Your basic premise is flawed. Some people do things just for fun.
It's seems you only think people that agree with you are the ones who have read your posts, and anyone who diagrees with you either hasn't read the posts or failed to understand your wisdom.
Your basic premise is flawed. Some people do things just for fun.
It's seems you only think people that agree with you are the ones who have read your posts, and anyone who diagrees with you either hasn't read the posts or failed to understand your wisdom.
The fact that you think that this discussion is about why people sit down to play a game of D&D is all the proof I need to know that you...how did you put it?
either hasn't read the posts or failed to understand
Ah yes. That.
Again...*sigh*
I'm on a journey of enlightenment, learning and self-improvement. A journey towards mastery. A journey that will never end.
If you challenge me, prepare to be challenged. If you have something to offer as a fellow student, I will accept it. If you call yourself a master, prepare to be humbled. If you seek me, look to the path. I will be traveling it. #SuperDungeonMasterIITurbo
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />When I read that, all I could think of is Professor Frink when he plays with the kid's toy. Frink: Mwa-hey, bwa-hai. The compression and expansion of the longitudinal waves cause the erratic oscillation, you can see it there, of the neighbouring particles. A little girl attracts Professor Frink's attention Frink: Yes, what is it, what, what is it? Little Girl: Can I play with it?Frink: No you can't play with it, you won't enjoy it on as many levels as I do... Mm-hai bw-ha whoa-hoa. The colours children. Mwa-ha-lee
In other words: I think your selection bias is showing.
Believe me when i say academia doesn't mean betterment or better experience, all it means is academia. You are well versed in a certain subject at the expense of other things. Some of my lecturers are absolute tools because they think 'I'm better than you because i have a PhD and you don't!' so I'd appreciate you not putting me in that category, i really despise those kinds of people and i want to just smack them whenever they open their mouths.
As for what i said, maybe i should have said it differently. I was tired and i don't think i phrased what i said too well. I'll rephrase.
It takes a certain type of person to question everything. The majority of people don't do it and it takes certain people with the right mind to do it. Thats not to say what they are doing is wrong, it isn't, it's just different and it's this difference that makes us unique as a species. I've always had the theory that the one thing you can't teach is the way a person thinks, you can teach them what to think about or give them information as well as skills they'll need to help them think, but never can you teach them the way in which they think those things. This leads to a uniqueness and individuality that just means that everybodies mind works differently, for example, i think in minature stories which run through my head, like a film of what i'm imagining/thinking about. My mum on the other hand thinks in colours and links almost everything she knows and feels to those colours. One of my friends when i was in college thought in the voices of her friends, family, collegues and aquaintances, each embodying something different (Can you tell i ask this of almost everyone i get close to?).
In other words, everybodies different and i love that difference and it just means that some people agree, some people disagree, some people don't get the point of something while others do and some people merely misunderstand. It also means that this is a forum where people come to threads of their own free will and so there was no 'selection' at all, it was their choice to come here and post and there are those that decided not to come or to post. This shows a difference in peoples likes a dislikes, not a selection bias at all.
Sorry, that was way off topic but i felt like i needed to explain myself more clearly.
To get us back on topic, this means its great you disagree (how boring would the world be if everybody agreed on everything all the time?) but it also means i have the right to try and convince you otherwise and try and explain myself more clearly.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true">Additionally, D&D is a competitive game in that a team of players compete against challenges put before them (or that they seek out) and try to overcome them. That it is not player vs player competitive is irrelevant.
As was pointed out in the thread, Marvel Ultimate Alliance is a similar style of game where it is competitive and the players attempt to overcome supervillains to win. Now, if you were playing Marvel Ultimate alliance or had just booted it up and your friend, having never seen it before, asked you "Oh that looks cool. What's the point of this game?" would you answer "To have fun"? And if you did, how would you not expect your friend to look at you as if you were A) an idiot or B) messing with him?
I would honestly say that the fact that it is not player against player does indeed render the idea of D&D being a competitive game irrelevant, but it's honestly not worth arguing the point.
That said, if I was asked by a friend "What's the point of this game?" in regard to a videogame, I might not outright say "To have fun," but my response would essentially frame it in a context tied to enjoyment. I wouldn't go into talk of mechanics or what the in-game objectives do, I would be telling the inquiring friend "Well, the story is..." and explain it in terms of the in-game world and what's happening. To give a more clear example, if I'm telling someone about Warriors Orochi 3 Hyper--the game I'm currently playing--I would tell them that the game is about playing as characters from Japanese and Chinese history and mythology who are traveling in time to change the history of their mystically merged world, in order to defeat a monstrous hydra that was created when they previously defeated Orochi. That's what is more likely to grab the person's attention, as opposed to telling them about the combat system, the leveling mechanic, the weapon upgrade system, or that there are unlockable battlefields. This is also why I've almost never heard anyone ask "What's the point?" in regard to a videogame, unless they honestly couldn't understand what the reason was behind even making such a game. Most people will ask "What's this about?" or otherwise want to know the plot, not the mechanics or the end-game victory requirements. This is quite likely why videogames, as opposed to things like sports, have a plot. I've only ever asked "What's the point?" about a videogame when it was something like Dark Souls, wherein the plot is incredibly thin, and the entire point of the game seems to be simply to cause the PC's demise. There is nothing in that game that I can find enjoyable or engaging, therefore I am reduced to asking what the point of the game is to try to understand what there is to make someone want to play it.
This is similar to D&D, in my view; no one typically wants to hear about leveling up, or optimizing, or combat mechanics; when they ask "What's the point of this game?", they want to hear about what's interesting. This is why people tend to say that the point of the game is to enjoy it. In D&D, I highly doubt anyone finds leveling mechanics, combat mechanics, the gaining of in-game currency, or any of that business to be the final point of the game. They are the means of achieving interest, immersion, and interaction with the game, but in the end, the reason why we play games like D&D are to enjoy them. If we didn't, we'd move on to different things. In general, people want to hear what makes that particular group's game interesting, why it engages them. This is what will attract people to the game, and this is why other PnP RPGs have touted themselves as being more story-focused (like WoD). Rules and mechanics are the equipment necessary to play, but they are not what actually makes the game. If they were, then there wouldn't be so many published settings, published adventures, etc. to help in creating plot and an interesting, engaging story. Rules are like the tack you put on the horse: necessary to take that trail ride, but not the enjoyable part of it; the ride is what's enjoyable and engaging.
Hence why so many people will ask someone who's unsure of some aspect of the game "Are you having fun?" often further inquiring as to whether or not this particular aspect or mechanic will make the game more or less enjoyable for them and their group. If they're enjoying the game with the way that they've been playing, even if they're not using a certain mechanic or are using it as they interpret it, rather than necessarily how it's written, then why change how they play? Similarly, people will often ask if someone has issues with how their game is being run (a DM who refuses to allow certain things, or who institutes crit-miss charts, etc., or another player in the group who does disruptive things, for example) "Are you having fun?" to ascertain whether or not they might be best served by looking for a different group. If you're not having fun in the game and with the group you're in, then it might be best to not play with that group, even if they're adhering to the supposed "point" of the game (if we conclude that leveling up, gaining in-game wealth, and winning in-game combats is indeed the point).
While nobody plays a game solely for fun, it is often the reason why one chooses one game over another. I wouldn't play D&D if I didn't enjoy myself foremost, which was why I stopped playing late in 3.5e; I found that there were other games far more immersive and enjoyable, while D&D had stopped being enjoyable to play once I realized that there were a lot of plots and stories that I couldn't make work within the confines of its mechanics. It took 4e to bring my attention back to D&D, as it made the game--guess what?--more fun. It became enjoyable to run and play D&D in 4e, therefore, I returned to playing it.
