Search results

It’s not charitable because it’s poor analysis to state your preferences as objective, as too many people are prone to do.

Right, exactly. And I think importantly, I don't know of any published games that actually attempt that willful incompatibility. Its occurrence is the result of people bringing in assumptions from other games; for example, that because skills are internal in one game, they must necessarily be...

I wouldn't phrase it that way. A story is the result of what happens, but only in some cases is the point of play trying to make that result interesting or more "literary". Like, if I livestreamed myself for the next 6 hours, you could tell a story about what I did, but what I am doing is not...

From the comments on the blog post:

Yea, I have a very different view, such as I don't think there's an obvious compromise. A game oriented around delivering a planned final outcome (like an AP) is very distinct from a "play to see what happens" type of game. Now, obviously you don't know for sure what's going to happen in an AP...

Sure, but the article does tease them apart as being distinct techniques. They simply both fall under the umbrella of Simulationism, which has a host of various techniques under it, just as Gamism and Narrativism do. It's certainly difficult to do genre emulation and world simulation at the...

People have been doing that on this forum for 25 years. :)

Come on, man, we don't want to have that argument. Everyone was more or less getting along.

Yes. That's exactly the problem; when a participant brings in concepts from other games rather than approaching a game as coming from its own stated procedures and nothing else. And it's fine for a game's premise or procedures to not work for you! The problem is only when it's presented and...

I'd really rather not. It engages with a LOT of topics, and I would almost assuredly not get across a lot of the important context.

It's certainly worth it to read the entire blog post. It engages with precisely these points.

Tuovinen describes that separation this way in the blog post linked above; I find their description compelling but that's just my personal opinion.

Sorry; must be the brain damage. :)

Yea, I had read that article a few years back, but I totally forgot about how coherent and encompassing it is.

Agreed. This is 100% me; I am absolutely a neophile. I enjoy the onboarding and "gaining proficiency over the rules" aspect of gaming, and I have almost zero interest in gaining any sort of mastery. I'm a proud dilettante. :)

That makes sense. My only concern is that usage might elide some of the distinctions between, say, A) Playing a trad game sandbox. B) Playing Stonetop. C) Playing a Pathfinder-style adventure path. D) Playing Fiasco. C and D both have a focus on "telling a story", as I evaluate it...

Double post.

OK. Can you clarify which portions of my provided example you disagree with, or which portions need more context or greater granularity?

If I said “this game will be set in Eberron”, as an example, would that be sufficient?

To my mind, “telling a story” is how I’d describe the orientation of a session of Fiasco, or playing through a metaplot-heavy module of Vampire or other old-school White Wolf. There’s a focus on playing through a series of scenes to get a desired “narrative endpoint”. What something like BW or...