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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="PsyzhranV2" data-source="post: 8143250" data-attributes="member: 7015332">I don't want to play in an RPG scene where Dada is the dominant artistic paradigm.All respect to the historical Dadaists, but I don't think their artistic philosophy is a good match for games design.Yes, game designers don't have the ability to teleport to peoples' homes and punch GMs that make house rules that get in the way of or even break the RAW game system. No matter how much intentionality and coherence of vision and design the designers put into their works and products, they can't stop people doing what they want at the home table. I can't fault them for trying though. Certainly a better design approach than throwing turds at the wall and seeing which ones stick, leading to a game lacking any thematic and mechanical consistency, constantly fighting with itself at every turn.Also, I feel that when the topic at hand is comparisons between different game systems, discussions of principles as mechanics is most relevant and most useful approach. The objective of the conversation is to elucidate the different approaches used by different games, see if there is any designer intent behind the rule they've chosen - what they mechanized vs what they left blank, how decisions are resolved, etc. - and assess if the designers succeeded or failed in communicating their intentions.Invoking GM fiat as the trump card of "system doesn't matter" only serves to obfuscate the argument, as then the conversation loses the foundation of the above. In a discussion about table etiquette and social dynamics, it would berelevant, but when talking about design itself, all it does is make all the participants of the conversation unsure if they are still even talking about the same thing.</blockquote>

Verification