NO YOU CAN’T WIELD POWER THAT’S CHEATING WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE IMAGINARY RULES I MADE UP!

  • JohnBrownNote [comrade/them, des/pair]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    6 months ago

    I was thinking about that. I think, in some senses, winning is what separates play from a game. Though to the authors credit, they do discuss the joys of losing, but losing in a context where you understand why you lost and can use that understanding to improve. Thesis… antithesis… victory?

    there’s a somewhat baffling aspect to games studies (not to be confused with game theory, the math thing) where they think walking to the park to play cricket is part of the game of cricket, not just the rules part with battsmen and knocking down the wicket or whatever.

    i find this old article by mark rosewater a more sensible framework, although he’s definitely not an academic and i don’t know if he’s read CLR James. also fuck him for being a company man

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.netOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      6 months ago

      I’ve always been extremely skeptical of game theorists because they keep getting mad when compassion turns out to be more optimal than the “optimal play”.

      The article was a good read, thanks for sharing. One of the things I love about trying to define “game” or “comedy” or “love” is you never arrive at a definition, but you usually kick up a couple of new questions that will help you gain new insights when you explore them.