NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9241435" data-attributes="member: 71699">Maybe the simplest thing to say is that the goal of my manifesto is not to serve as practical instructions for game design, but to slap across the face with a glove all those thinking of designing neotrad games. It is not a criticism responsive to a provocation to say that it fails to give practical instruction as to what to do next. So far as I can tell, you've got that covered.I'm uncertain here whether you are taking the arguments to be somehow in conflict. My manifesto is built on top of the theorising around GNS. It confirms that the narrativist comprehension of the lusory-duality isn't exclusively of benefit to storygames. Rather, the lusory-duality is taken to be fundamental to game qua game.A line of criticism what would be responsive to this could be for example, to say that there is no occupiable ground between traditional modes and narrativist modes. That you cannot have narrativist-sandbox, narrativist-sim, narrativist-OSR, narrativist-trad. Or narrativist-FKR (I'm still undecided about that one!) Or perhaps you could criticise the manifesto by saying that yes, there is such ground, but we do not need to change anything about the traditional strong-GM role to occupy it. (I don't think this is right, but it would certainly be responsive.)I respect your interest in the practicalities of design, but this is not that thread. Well, other than predicting that you cannot achieve strong-version neotrad unless you heed the manifesto! (It would certainly be responsive to challenge that claim.)</blockquote>

Verification