It's all a matter of perspective

From: htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)

Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Chris Conley:

>I think you need to rethink your view of "PFEM" games.

Yes, you're right.  As I said originally, and as I have repeated at least
once before, PFEM was a quick-and-dirty little label which I created to
differentiate games which are based on paper reports and those that are
not.

Subsequent discussion has revealed that, by a process of iteration, *any*
data packet can be turned into a paper-based report (thus invalidating the
PFEM label).  What people fail to also realise is that, by a process of
iteration, *any* data packet can also be made to look like a carrot - so
you shouldn't delve too deeply on any subject, because under close
scrutiny, *everything* breaks (light, gravity, relativity, the colour of a
person's eyes, the smell of a camel, everything).

The whole point of the PFEM label was to split up the games that we play
into three manageable groups (PBM, PBEM, PFEM) so that *high-level*
discussions could take place about the differences between them, and
hopefully precipitate some meaningful insight on the need for structural
reform.

Instead, most of the discussion has been extremely low-level, ultimately
pedantic, and of little use for any purpose other than justifying this
newsgroup's existence as an open forum.

On two previous occasions I have held out an invitation for anyone with a
better way to sub-divide the games to step forward and speak up.  The
result?  Stunned silence.  Then a resumption of bickering.  It seems as
though there is a "can't see the forest for the trees" thing happening
here - and while I want to talk about the health of the forest, other's
seem intent on talking about the health of individual trees.

I suspect that this is the case because there are precious few people here
who have ever actually designed a game, and lots of people who play them.
The result is discussion biased toward the issues that *players* think are
important (the health of individual trees), as opposed to what *designers*
think are important (the health of the forest as a whole).  Sure the two
are connected, but not as closely as some would think.

Having lurked at rec.games.design for a while, and found the emphasis
squarely on platform and language-specific issues (go figure), I turned to
rec.games.pbm hoping that I may find at least a few people thinking on the
same wavelength - sadly this has not been the case.  Ah, well.  I'll
continue to poke and prod every so often and hope that, one of these days,
a designer might venture a response.

Henry.

References

Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
quixote@hing.lcs.mit.edu (Chris Conley)
Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000

Referenced By

Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
David desJardins <desj@math.berkeley.edu>
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
Re: The nature of the beast
quixote@hing.lcs.mit.edu (Chris Conley)
Sun, 21 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000
The nature of the beast
htp@dove.net.au (Henry Penninkilampi)
Thu, 18 Feb 1999 00:00:00 +0000