Kelgray and Beyond

int game_engine(void) {

The Charactorial Theory of Roleplaying Games

Last time I started to talk about the Charactorial Theory o f Roleplaying Games, but I left the definition of what that is somewhat vague.  So now let’s explore it a bit further and see if we can make this work as a solution to the demarcation of roleplaying games.

 So the Characrtorial Theory of Roleplaying Games states that a game is a roleplaying game if and only if you are able to define your character through the game mechanics.  So let’s start by defining what’s meant by game mechanics.  If this term is used too loosely then any game that allows you to enter a description about your character would be included, so we have to be a bit more specific and say that it is the in-game mechanics that matter.  That is to say the part of the game where you actually consider yourself to be playing, rather than the part where you are setting yourself up, getting ready to play.  So the actual character creation part of any game would be excluded in the Charactorial theory of roleplaying games.  Which would mean that according to this theory, it wouldn’t matter what “class” of character you are, be it mage, thief, warrior, etc.  The game mechanics that are set up because of the character creation, therefore, also wouldn’t matter, as we would say that you would simply be playing a different version of the game.  Basically, if your character relies on the game mechanics for his/her definition, then the game mechanics cannot rely on your character for theirs.  One or the other has to come first, and so we’re saying that the game mechanics must come first and the character be made out of them. Continue reading

Advertisements

April 25, 2007 Posted by | Epistomology, Ethics, Fallout, Games, Metaphysics, Oblivion, Philosophy, Roleplaying Games, RPG, Technology, Videogames | 6 Comments

A Continuation From Miniskirts

So now I’m stuck in this religious philosophy frame of mind so I figured I’d take my last post a bit further and try to sort some more things out.  In my last post I came down to the idea that in order for the Ontological argument for God’s existence to be true, one must be able to come up with a proof that shows that there is no set of properties that would negate existence and that would be better than existence.

 

So the next question to ask is that if something does not exist, then does it have to fall under the rules of logic?  For instance.  We know that it is not possible for something that exists to be both red and not-red at the same time. (that is to say that it is red and it is not the case that it is red, not simply that it is something other than red for it is possible for something to be red and something other than red at the same time, but it’s not possible for it to be red if it has no red in it).  But is it possible for something that doesn’t exist to be both red and not red?  Since we’re living within the rules of logic we’d have to say that no it can’t as contradictions are not logically possible.  Which means that my original question now becomes somewhat moot for if omniscience and free-will are inconsistent in existence, then surely they would be inconsistent in non-existence as well.

 

Continue reading

February 17, 2007 Posted by | God, Logic, Metaphysics, Miniskirts, Philosophy | 1 Comment

Miniskirts, Beer, and God

Okay, first of all I got a disclaimer to put out there.  I am not taking a religious view of God in this article.  I’m going to speak of God in a purely philosophical manner.  In no way am I saying that I believe in God or that I do not believe in God.  I’m simply putting the argument out there.

That being said, I’m gonna talk about the miniskirt argument against the Ontological argument for God’s existence.  Now I think a little exposition is in order before I start talking about the argument itself.  The miniskirt argument was first created by myself and Brian Greenslade in the Liberty Lounge at Mount Royal College.  The purpose of coming up with the argument, at the time, was simply so that we’d be able to drink beer in class.  The beer in class argument went something along the lines of, our argument against the Ontological argument for God’s existence deals with miniskirts.   You can’t have in-depth discussions about miniskirts without beer, therefore we necessarily must bring beer to class in order to fully discuss the topics that we are supposed to discuss.  We never actually got around to giving that argument to the prof I don’t think, but it was a damned good idea if I do say so myself.

Continue reading

February 16, 2007 Posted by | Beer, God, Logic, Metaphysics, Miniskirts, Philosophy, Writings | 13 Comments