Too often in our society we place stigmas on mistakes. Championing a resume with skills and accomplishments will further taboo mistakes. Furthermore, the larger consequence would be that creating a merit system based on our resumes will deter people from taking risks and thus expanding the boundaries of the game
While I agree with the premise that players shouldn't be scared away from making mistakes, which would risk of deterring concrete exploration of the game, the realism and purpose of the game necessitates the hoarding of skills and accomplishments.
Since this game was inspired by "warmongering" and "suffering" among the general populace of the world one can conclude that mistakes were made with the administration of the various states of the world. Thus the game should reward wise decisions on the part of states/players and punish drastic mistakes, which would be manifested as the addign or subtracting of skills, accomplishments, and wealth.
I agree with McLovin's comment that mistakes are too often viewed as unacceptable by our society. If we put too much emphasis on having certain skills then, as McLovin mentioned, players will only attempt to acquire those skills and will fail to experiment or to take chances. How is establishing a set measure or proxy of success encouraging players to do anything but "play it safe"? Likening success to a resume reproduces the mentality that it's better not to take a chance instead of trying and failing - a way of thinking that is pervasive in society today.
People, due to normal human variation, are going to have and be able to obtain different skill sets regardless of monetary value. I feel the real problem is the accumulation of these skills sets solely for monetary value. Wealth is a stimulation of more selfish aspirations or trying to gain power and control through a physical representation of those terms. Money, especially in terms we use today meaning currency with no backing beside the word of the government, seems to be a way for the government to create a hierarchy and a failed stimulus for work ethic. People will work and have skills to survive, and while I am not suggesting a reversion to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, our system of barter and social interaction could still be maintained without having to receive wealth as a reward. Maybe there should be a consideration to a replacement reward that does not establish a socio-economic hierarchy?
Fair enough, but what could possibly replace money that would not establish some sort of hierarchy? I am trying to think of any sort of reward for skills that wouldn't - as CeritaBickelmann perceptively writes - act as solely a "stimulus for work ethic". Perhaps the reward could be given secretly, so that players don't know that others have received a reward for skills and thus, a hierarchy based around this award wouldn't come to fruition. Otherwise I think that it is inevitable that people will be ranked/socially ordered - and their status determined - by their success with any sort of reward system.
Too often in our society we place stigmas on mistakes. Championing a resume with skills and accomplishments will further taboo mistakes. Furthermore, the larger consequence would be that creating a merit system based on our resumes will deter people from taking risks and thus expanding the boundaries of the game
While I agree with the premise that players shouldn't be scared away from making mistakes, which would risk of deterring concrete exploration of the game, the realism and purpose of the game necessitates the hoarding of skills and accomplishments.
Since this game was inspired by "warmongering" and "suffering" among the general populace of the world one can conclude that mistakes were made with the administration of the various states of the world. Thus the game should reward wise decisions on the part of states/players and punish drastic mistakes, which would be manifested as the addign or subtracting of skills, accomplishments, and wealth.
I agree with McLovin's comment that mistakes are too often viewed as unacceptable by our society. If we put too much emphasis on having certain skills then, as McLovin mentioned, players will only attempt to acquire those skills and will fail to experiment or to take chances. How is establishing a set measure or proxy of success encouraging players to do anything but "play it safe"? Likening success to a resume reproduces the mentality that it's better not to take a chance instead of trying and failing - a way of thinking that is pervasive in society today.
People, due to normal human variation, are going to have and be able to obtain different skill sets regardless of monetary value. I feel the real problem is the accumulation of these skills sets solely for monetary value. Wealth is a stimulation of more selfish aspirations or trying to gain power and control through a physical representation of those terms. Money, especially in terms we use today meaning currency with no backing beside the word of the government, seems to be a way for the government to create a hierarchy and a failed stimulus for work ethic. People will work and have skills to survive, and while I am not suggesting a reversion to the hunter-gatherer lifestyle, our system of barter and social interaction could still be maintained without having to receive wealth as a reward. Maybe there should be a consideration to a replacement reward that does not establish a socio-economic hierarchy?
Fair enough, but what could possibly replace money that would not establish some sort of hierarchy? I am trying to think of any sort of reward for skills that wouldn't - as CeritaBickelmann perceptively writes - act as solely a "stimulus for work ethic". Perhaps the reward could be given secretly, so that players don't know that others have received a reward for skills and thus, a hierarchy based around this award wouldn't come to fruition. Otherwise I think that it is inevitable that people will be ranked/socially ordered - and their status determined - by their success with any sort of reward system.