Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9240460" data-attributes="member: 70468">When I read “runtime”, I’ve been mentally substituting “in play” in place of it. I agree that “runtime” is a notion that doesn’t really make sense for non-digital games, but it’s easy to devise a meaning that works.Alas, yes. I’m not a fan of the default assumptions of how things work in our hobby because it makes it difficult to do other things in a game. I think it would be beneficial overall if games communicated clearly how they are supposed to work. That would benefit not just other games that wanted to do something different but also the established ones by providing new players what they need to get started and play without having to use external resources. There are obviously challenges to that (e.g., how to effectively on board players without requiring them to read hundreds of pages), but digging into that is way outside the scope of this discussion.I’m having trouble reconciling this with <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-neotrad-ttrpg-design-manifesto.701957/post-9239795" target="_blank">post #241</a>, which said (regarding sandbox play in my homebrew system), “This is the aim of sandbox play; a traditional mode. That would mean the design work is done for trad design.”I’m using “good faith play” to mean that you play on its terms.¹ Baker lays out what the MC is supposed to do, but he can’t make you do that because it’s part of the experience that cannot be directly controlled by the designer. Whether you count the MC as a player or another participant, they either agree to engage in their role as prescribed by the game or not. If not, and if the game does not provide for that, then one has left the realm of good faith play.As I noted in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/a-neotrad-ttrpg-design-manifesto.701957/post-9240017" target="_blank">post #266</a>, I hadn’t really intended MDA to gain the prominence in this discussion that it did. It was an example of an established framework for design I could reference due to my status as an amateur designer and could relate to other professional experiences I do have. It’s not strictly required for these analyses, though I consider using it (or a derivative) preferable to taking a taxonomical view (which happens far too often in RPG discourse).Being explicit about what you want your game to do seems like a pretty good thing to do regardless.[HR][/HR][1]: Note that I’m using “rules” and “good faith play” fairly broadly. If a game provides for expansive authority to change it or disregard it at runtime or anytime, then doing so would still constitute “good faith play”.</blockquote>

Verification