Quote: Originally posted by M3g7e
As I've tried to make clear, the game is a playstyle: read the forward to the challenge where I lay out the premises for the game. It makes me very little difference how you handle these aspects of your game.
|
Actually, I have read the forward in addition to the subsequent pages of the challenge from the first page to the last page this past month, and I do find the forward a bit problematic. In summary, the forward explains how you have got interested or inspired about writing the challenge, why you write the challenge, and what you hope that the Simmers would keep in mind throughout the challenge, which is to "encourage interested players to approach Warwickshire as the spirit of the question, one which lives through the persistent and urgent necessity of those who labor to cope with a system that is at once made to seem 'natural' and which is rigid, hierarchical, abstract, often oppressive, and even, at times, unjust." In addition, you claim that, "Though I have tirelessly researched the components of the challenge, it is not a perfect historical replica of life in the early Renaissance, nor is it meant to be. The system constructed is meant to outline a Renaissance cosmology and, as such, aims to be faithful to a way of thinking, not to historical particularity." Basically, it's trying to say that the challenge is meant to be faithful to a way of thinking. However, I think there is a logical fallacy in that response right there, because you are not putting historical events into context. In the modern-day era, yes, it would be considered rigid, hierarchical, abstract, often oppressive, and unjust; however, I think it would be more helpful to put the phenomenon
within context (that is, in the pre-modern era). Kings in the past ruled by divine right, and it is divine right that granted them the right to rule. Serfs and peasants abide by divine right as well, and according to
context, this hierarchy is NOT unjust, because it works based on cooperation, loyalty, and security. You can't rip out a way of thinking without context of the way people lived back then! Therefore, this challenge must be set during pre-modern times and should be treated like a historical fiction or medieval fantasy neighborhood. Finally, the forward says that "Further, you will find no hard, fast rules here—nothing that must be done, no absolute requirements, and very few definites of any kind. What you will see in Warwickshire is the outline of a social order for your sims to live within—but keep in mind, everything is to be negotiated, troubled, navigated, suffered, and ultimately called to account." This is most problematic, because it will be considered contradictory in the following examples and the manner by which you write.
Case #1: On page 14, you say that Open For Business is absolutely required and Seasons is "very highly recommended". However, the actual writing of the challenge assumes that the player has all the expansion packs and, in addition, play with the "recommended" and "very useful" mods as well. It states, "If you wish to play a completely unmodded game, you may find Warwickshire is not the challenge for you." This is a claim that can easily be refuted, because a player can easily create an unmodified game with the original game mechanics, as intended by EA/Maxis, ignore all the tables and die rolls, and only control the Sims based on a whim and free will. Since you have mentioned in the forward you want the challenge to be faithful to a way of thinking and not of historical peculiarity, you imply that custom content, hacks, and other expansion packs are NOT required. If they are not required, then that means a player with only the base game and no custom content or hacks can still opt to play the game. It would only look funny, because the way of thinking is pre-modern and the Sims are all dressed in modern clothes. To compensate the would-be anachronism, I think the player has to devise a way to incorporate the way of thinking and way of dress into one coherent story. Otherwise, it would not make any sense, unless the Sims have a particular culture assigned by the player.
Case #2: If the player wants to include the suggestion on Money Cheats on page 64, then the player is going to be stuck right there, because the section is self-contradictory. It says explicitly that, "A Thief’s success at stealing is moderated by several factors: the class station of their victim, the amount stolen, and their body and logic skill points." However, in reality, the amount stolen would not affect at all on the result, shown by the simplification of the equations. The amount stolen can simply be cancelled out, as A/A = 1. Because the equations do not work as intended, the player can devise a new equation for his or her personal use that actually works (including all the intended factors) or leave the Money Cheats part on one's own whim and free will, as long as the whim and free will make the Sim suffer in some way.
Case #3: In addition to Case #2, the equation on page 66 does not set boundaries for the variables, implying that any number from negative infinity to positive infinity can be used in the equation, hypothetically. Now, if you place a very large number in the equation, then all the constants would be considered negligible, because this very large number is so large. Therefore, set boundaries
MUST be set. It is highly recommended that an explanation on why the specific equation is used to describe a phenomenon within the challenge be included; otherwise, the equation in question would be rendered completely useless. Seriously, if a particular method does not work as intended, then a new method must be devised to replace the old method to work, along with justification of
why it works and is superior to other methods. Now, you may say that
that's the player's choice, and indeed it would be considered the player's choice. However, the player's choice to create a better equation that actually works as intended would be more useful and productive than the player's insistence on using an equation that does not work as intended. One possible way to overcome this part is to skip over this section. Although bribing and stealing interactions would be considered interesting to include in the challenge, they are not practical based on the way the actual game is set up (unless you suggest how to do them), and the equations make bribery and theft even more impractical, because amount is not taken into account, as intended (unless you drop amount altogether).
Case #4: As Peni Griffin points out, the purpose of evil Sims is to defy the system to address to the question in hand. However, there is a problem with defying the system that works
within its context (that is, set in pre-modern times when the way of thinking was different from today's), because people believed in
divine right and the fact that the people wanted security from the lord and the lord wanted loyalty and cooperation from the people. This hierarchy, in this respect, works and is natural. That's how hierarchies work. If one wants everyone to be "equal", then try communism. As an ideology, that's the extreme form of equality, and it has made countries poor, backwards, and unproductive.
Therefore, for storytelling purposes, there really is no point or real reason why one should defy the system, when the system works under the condition that the principle of "divine right" is assumed, and the fact that some people are more fit to govern than others given certain conditions. One example of condition would be, I presume, the process of natural selection. Some species in certain environments have the "right" to "govern" the niche, because they are more equipped to fit within the niche. Please note that the process of natural selection is natural, not immoral or moral. One cannot place a moral ground on nature, because what is perfectly "natural" may be perceived to be "immoral". In Social Darwinism context, an employee who is more fit or suitable at doing a particular job is more likely to be selected and promoted upwards than an employee who is less fit or suitable at doing a particular job. The challenge also uses "good" and "evil" behaviors based on behaviors perceived as "good" and "evil" in the real world. This part may conflict with the player's own sense of morality, making the entire game more serious and not very humorous and lighthearted at all, especially for a player who wants to insert some random humor here and there. If the player wants to insert humor, then the humor would most likely be known as "dark humor" or making fun of gloomy things. To overcome this, the player may think of a way to invent a new set of "good" and "evil" behaviors -- a set that is not relevant to real life. In my own game, the "evil" behavior is kicking over the trash can, and it is described so humorously that the "evil" behavior is not evil at all, in terms of the morality that is present in people's everyday lives.
Why am I posting this? I am posting this, because I feel that overall, the main point of the challenge has not been fulfilled, and the overall challenge has self-contradictory points, which is why the challenge is not for me. As for my historical neighborhood that I currently have in my game, it would not be considered "Warwickshire" under your eyes, because it does not fulfill the principle requirement, which is to embrace the old way of thinking (or defy it) in whatever social context one can think of but would be considered inappropriate to the time and place of the way of thinking. Rather, I actually play it very similar to what other people play Pleasantview, Strangetown, or Veronaville or a simple legacy challenge.