It took a few years but I get it now!!

A forum to seperate the more serious discussions from the lighter topics in Off-topic.

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby Tarsier » 14 Sep 2017, 04:31

V wrote:I'll make a second contribution to this age old debate (probably a mistake). In support of NoPunIn10Did's comment reference "premature". The problem with this argument is one or two participants are usually making subjective decisions upon other participants actions, deciding on their behalf that their choice whatever it may have been, was premature & "carebear" etc. To add to this mix the decider/s are usually in a state of frustration facing defeat or at least disappointment.

I have been in so many games in which a clearly strong player forms a solid alliance with another. A neighbour makes an error of judgement early in the game & the two of them command maybe 12+ SC's very quickly. Either of them, left to their own devices could very easily formulate a solo.
There are often not that many options, but to try & establish a larger committed rival alliance, bent on destroying the "bad guys". This may not necessarily be a "natural" alliance & may require members to fully commit in an unexpected direction. Once a successful path towards the objective is found, it takes a huge amount of persuasion to not simply implement the eliminations, especially if a change of direction has become difficult.

Was it premature? The victorious side is unlikely to think so. The defeated side probably will. It is so subjective & coloured by the outcome, that the whole debate becomes a nonsense.

I promise (to you guys & myself) I will not attempt a third contribution. I've gotten trapped in this soloist vs carebear debate way to often. As I said before all approaches to this game have to be considered valid at all times, because one has to assume the person taking the approach is doing the best they can within their abilities to participate as well as they can. For another participant to sit in judgement of what was done & when is always going to be a lost cause.


I agree with the subjective nature of the "premature" descriptor. If I used it first, what I meant by that was that someone decided on the draw "premature" to his own situation. In other words, it was before he, himself, saw any tactical or defensive reason to push for a draw, but he preferred a draw as a nice, safe goal in the game. So ... I am referring to a player choosing a draw premature to himself seeing a contextual reason to do so.

I fully agree that arguments of timing are purely subjective.
User avatar
Tarsier
 
Posts: 580
Joined: 03 Dec 2013, 02:39
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2008
All-game rating: 2100
Timezone: GMT

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 14 Sep 2017, 16:41

Tarsier wrote:Again, I challenge anyone to find where a "soloist" (again, a silly label) has argued that draws are anathema.


It's not a label I made up, and I've seen it used to self-describe.

Are you not familiar with this article?
The Soloist Manifesto

David Cohen presents a more crystallized version of some of the opinions being expressed here.
NoPunIn10Did
Gold Classicist & Benevolent Tyrant

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 811
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1223
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby Tarsier » 14 Sep 2017, 18:05

NoPunIn10Did wrote:
Tarsier wrote:Again, I challenge anyone to find where a "soloist" (again, a silly label) has argued that draws are anathema.


It's not a label I made up, and I've seen it used to self-describe.

Are you not familiar with this article?
The Soloist Manifesto

David Cohen presents a more crystallized version of some of the opinions being expressed here.


I know you didn't make it up. I just think it's a silly term, self-described or not.
User avatar
Tarsier
 
Posts: 580
Joined: 03 Dec 2013, 02:39
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2008
All-game rating: 2100
Timezone: GMT

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby WHSeward » 14 Sep 2017, 18:37

Not even the author of that article argues that draws are anathema. He is explicit on the point:
David E. Cohen wrote:This does not mean that a Soloist who accepts a draw, or who survives or is eliminated when someone else wins did not accomplish anything, nor does it mean that he or she did not play well. What it means is what was stated, that the Soloist has failed to achieve his or her goal, which is to win.
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
WHSeward
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1593
All-game rating: 1606
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby Tarsier » 14 Sep 2017, 20:25

WHSeward wrote:Not even the author of that article argues that draws are anathema. He is explicit on the point:
David E. Cohen wrote:This does not mean that a Soloist who accepts a draw, or who survives or is eliminated when someone else wins did not accomplish anything, nor does it mean that he or she did not play well. What it means is what was stated, that the Soloist has failed to achieve his or her goal, which is to win.


Amen! Exactly my point.
User avatar
Tarsier
 
Posts: 580
Joined: 03 Dec 2013, 02:39
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 2008
All-game rating: 2100
Timezone: GMT

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 14 Sep 2017, 21:21

Tarsier wrote:
WHSeward wrote:Not even the author of that article argues that draws are anathema. He is explicit on the point:
David E. Cohen wrote:This does not mean that a Soloist who accepts a draw, or who survives or is eliminated when someone else wins did not accomplish anything, nor does it mean that he or she did not play well. What it means is what was stated, that the Soloist has failed to achieve his or her goal, which is to win.


Amen! Exactly my point.


I didn't say that you thought "draws are anathema" either. You seem to have misread my sentence.

Emphasis added:
I'm just not sure I see the point in the sort of quasi-snobbery that treats draw-oriented players as anathema to the game itself.

I'm pointing to how Cohen refers to "drawmongers" and how others use "carebear" as a term of derision. Or to the notion that draw-oriented players harm the "integrity" of the game by being willing to set their desired expectations lower than a solo from the outset (or nearly so).

I didn't mean to convey that I thought your argument was that draws are bad. I can see very clearly that's not your argument.
NoPunIn10Did
Gold Classicist & Benevolent Tyrant

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 811
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1223
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 14 Sep 2017, 21:28

Tarsier wrote:I am referring to a player choosing a draw premature to himself seeing a contextual reason to do so.


I think the player you have defined here is somewhat of a contradiction. I don't think any player under normal conditions chooses to push for a draw without a "contextual reason to do so."

What's likely different is the threshold of "contextual reason" that you find acceptable versus the threshold that they find acceptable.
NoPunIn10Did
Gold Classicist & Benevolent Tyrant

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 811
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1223
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 14 Sep 2017, 21:32

And if we return to the OP, who is far less generous than Tarsier (or even Cohen for that matter):

And that brings me back to my topic... I get it now... back when the topic of "Going for the Solo vs Going for the Draw" was being debated.... I was wrong wrong wrong.... going for the draw as a design purpose of playing this game, Diplomacy, is the worst kind of gaming possible. Going for the solo is the only way this should be played. IF and only IF a draw is the only way out... then so be it... but going for the draw from the outset... just to get points... is a perversion of this the best of all games.


This is the attitude that I'm calling "quasi-snobbery."
NoPunIn10Did
Gold Classicist & Benevolent Tyrant

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 811
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1223
Timezone: GMT-5

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby WHSeward » 14 Sep 2017, 21:50

That is a pretty uncharitable reading, NP. Springbutt is expressing his epiphany in an emphatic way; there is an approach to Diplomacy that leads to better, more fun games than his prior approach. Calling it snobbery, quasi- or otherwise, doesn't seem warranted. Seems he should be allowed to reverse and retract his prior opinion and express his new view.
"As a general truth, communities prosper and flourish, or droop and decline, in just the degree that they practice or neglect to practice the primary duties of justice and humanity." WHS

A member of the Classicists.

Ask me about mentor games. Send me a PM or post in the Mentoring forum.
User avatar
WHSeward
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2693
Joined: 29 Dec 2012, 22:16
Location: San Francisco, California, USA
Class: Star Ambassador
Standard rating: 1593
All-game rating: 1606
Timezone: GMT-8

Re: It took a few years but I get it now!!

Postby NoPunIn10Did » 14 Sep 2017, 22:35

WHSeward wrote:That is a pretty uncharitable reading, NP. Springbutt is expressing his epiphany in an emphatic way; there is an approach to Diplomacy that leads to better, more fun games than his prior approach. Calling it snobbery, quasi- or otherwise, doesn't seem warranted. Seems he should be allowed to reverse and retract his prior opinion and express his new view.


Which is truly more "uncharitable" in this case: the relatively mild term "quasi-snobbery" or the usage of phrases like "worst kind of gaming possible" and "perversion"?

I know he's being hyperbolic. I even agree that the soloist approach leads to better games overall. But heaven forbid that my mild response be an "uncharitable" interpretation of his grand revelation. :P
NoPunIn10Did
Gold Classicist & Benevolent Tyrant

Variant GM, Designer & Collaborator
User avatar
NoPunIn10Did
Premium Member
 
Posts: 811
Joined: 17 Aug 2011, 00:17
Location: North Carolina
Class: Ambassador
Standard rating: 1000
All-game rating: 1223
Timezone: GMT-5

PreviousNext

Return to Debates

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests