If a friend refuses to play with me because I'm not good enough for him to get a proper challenge and enjoyment, then a) he pretty much implements that system of yours, and b) isn't a very good friend.
I was defending a position I made because @lisardggY disagreed with my stance. The arguement I made was that you could apply Marxism to fun... @lisardggY disagreed with me, so I sought to defend my stance
All of this said, I still don't disagree with the notion that rules can be implemented because it doesn't upset certain people enough to make them quit, but makes the game more enjoyable for the majority
At this point, I'm just saying that the idea that one person could be made to have less 'fun' so that many more can have more 'fun' is acceptable if the first person is still having what he feels is an acceptable level of 'fun' to justify participation
I can't help it, I'm a Tau at heart... if one person not being allowed to run an Elf means I and three other people get to run our favorite builds, I'm voting he loose the pointy ears
In my proposed system, he would have more fun if he was playing an elf than anything else, but him playing an elf means I and three other people don't get to be what we want to be most
It's a seperate construct than the pure marxist idea I originally proposed
Basically, if one person only getting one cookie means three people get two cookies (with cookies being factors in a game that make it enjoyable) then that means said person should have to only get one cookie, so the others can have 2
Because I'd love to talk about actual social contracts based on experience and the needs of a real group, but if we're backwards-engineering imaginary scenarios to justify an invented social contract based on philosophies not intended to be applied to such small groups with non-quantifiable resources.... I'm out.
@Trajan So, the idea behind New Historicism (which I do not agree with, for the record) is that creative works (specifically literature) are solely the product of their cultural milieu.
In addition to making the author's opinion of the work irrelephant to those consuming it, the author's identity is irrelephant to the actual creation of the work itself!
So, someone was going to write MacBeth, it just happened to be Shakespeare. Because someone would have written it anyway, the author is no longer a contributing factor, and therefore has no right to claim the work
Oh, I have no need or interest in debunking New Historicism; its spokesperson did that just fine when he wrote a whole book explaining exactly why the Shakespearean Authorship Question was hooey and only Shakespeare could possibly have written those plays.
No, but according to science, there can only ever be one outcome to any given mixture of elements. To remove any element from said mixture will change the ultimate outcome
Various popular aphorisms like "nature abhors a vacuum" or the principal of least effort which actually can lead one towards a conclusion that external forces and the network of relationships around an element (be it an atom or a species) is what determines its behavior.
The New Historicist POV, if I understood it correctly, is that the personality of Shakespeare himself is only one small facet of what goes in Macbeth. And given that, then a different writer would have written Macbeth only slightly differently.
Not shouting, no. You would accept the fact that your character, despite all the thought you've put into him, is defined by the other characters, and the setting, and the social expectations of him, no less than he is governed by what you want to say he does.
However, if we step back a moment and look at each GROUP as the author of its campaigns, we discover that my 4e campaign could just as easily have been played by @jonathanhobbs' group.
I'm becoming much too tired for conversation of this level of intellect... I think I've used more of my vocabulary tonight than I have in the past three months
New Historicism seems to posit that creativity bubbles up from the murky subconscious of a culture and finds expression through whatever artist is most convenient.
I think it mainly posits that an artist's creativity is less a piece of individual genius born in the untouched matrix of the artist's soul, but more of a way to creatively take the elements of culture that the artist is steeped in, and giving them form.
The idea that art does not arise solely from the artist, but that the artist is in part a channel for some larger force, resonates with me. However, I believe that the specific expression of that force is the artist's personal responsibility --although of course one's environment is very influential-- and that this inspiration is available to all; the idea of the non-artist is fatuous to me.
I've never really studied new historicism, but at a superficial level, I really don't see how it minimizes the artist's role. Maybe it minimizes the role of some undefined quality of creativity or genius with the artist, but the artist as a person - his upbringing, his personality, his biases and his place in society - seem to be brought to the forefront.
Mm. Admittedly I'm not deeply studied in the movement.
As I understand it, the idea is that the things which happen to the artist are at least as significant, if not more so, than the artist's own volition, when evaluating the works he makes.
I see that Geertz and Bourdieu are quoted in New Historicist texts, both writers I have read, and both write about the individual's interplay within the social field he is in.
Yes, that's closer to what I can gather. Bourdieu wrote about the sociology of science, and how the ethos of science - that of the objective observer in the lab, translating pure experiment into knowledge - is mostly a myth, and the scientist is also a product of his social milieu, which affects even the most basic scientific process.
Now, I'm all for taking the artist off the pedestal modern society has created, and dashing the illusion that not only can a mere privileged few Create, but that this scarcity of Creators requires society to allow them moral license not afforded to others.
As for Pitch Black, if you like Vin Diesel at all you should watch it. It's visually impressive with an awesome setting conceit. The plot is unsurprising, but solidly competent.
@ProfessorCaptainLokiCaprion His range is pretty narrow, and he needs a good director, but within his sweet spot he's very good.
Kinda like Keanu Reeves, a director who doesn't know how to use the guy to his potential and treats him like run-of-the-mill face actor is going to be disappointed with the results.
@BESW i could actually see my group as being very compatible with the far realm / tiefling empire campaign, provided we first get to stretch our newbie muscles
@BESW You know what? That's what my future DM believes in. I really want to ask him which elements make him think so, but I already how he doesn't like the "everybody uses the same mechanics" thing so... I don't think I can have him join my party.
@Zach try Trollbabe. It's a game that was explicitly born to address the need of people who wanted to be protagonists of the story and didn't like how the GM could easily ignore player input.
The first few might just be strange and different. If you pick one that uses very different conventions to our movies, it might be very strange and different - but it will still entirely tell a story.
@BESW You'll definitely understand it moreso if you understand the social context and so on, but it is not mandatory, and if you try very hard to understand it, you might just get caught up in thoughts of "I don't understand this, am I meant to understand this, am I missing something" and so on instead of just watching a movie.
I think you overestimate my ability to let things I don't get slide.
@Zachiel If he was willing to give it a fair chance he might be pleasantly surprised by how very different each class can feel despite being based on the same set of core mechanics.
But (based on my own experience in that zone) it's unlikely he'll be willing to do that, and attempts would just poison the group.
