Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8935337" data-attributes="member: 82106">Yeah, I'm not really saying EITHER of those things. RPGs are not all fundamentally the same, EXCEPT (and here Vince and I agree IMHO) they must involve an interaction between fiction and mechanics/state in which both MATTER (IE different fiction or different state would result in a different outcome and thus differences in following fiction, etc.). Beyond that [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] enumerated a few possible 'Processes of Play' as I call them, or distinct STYLES of process of play. There are deep differences between games using different ones. Likewise when discussing what Vince is calling 'exceptionalism', I don't think he is meaning to say that RPGs are JUST LIKE other kinds of games. He's saying they ARE games, and thus what we understand about games in general applies to RPGs. Nothing I am saying is in contravention to either of those positions, as I understand them.As I said before, in reference to fiction and games in general, it may well be an interesting area of study &quot;the fiction of games.&quot; I personally am not that interested in it when it doesn't integrate with play (IE when it is definitionally not an RPG). Anyway, the upshot is that we can say &quot;these games are board games&quot; and &quot;this games are card games&quot; and we can say &quot;these games are RPGs&quot; and I think there are fairly clear cut ways to decide how to apply those labels. That doesn't mean we should focus EXCLUSIVELY on those labels, card games and board games surely share elements, and so do RPGs.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8935337, member: 82106"] Yeah, I'm not really saying EITHER of those things. RPGs are not all fundamentally the same, EXCEPT (and here Vince and I agree IMHO) they must involve an interaction between fiction and mechanics/state in which both MATTER (IE different fiction or different state would result in a different outcome and thus differences in following fiction, etc.). Beyond that [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] enumerated a few possible 'Processes of Play' as I call them, or distinct STYLES of process of play. There are deep differences between games using different ones. Likewise when discussing what Vince is calling 'exceptionalism', I don't think he is meaning to say that RPGs are JUST LIKE other kinds of games. He's saying they ARE games, and thus what we understand about games in general applies to RPGs. Nothing I am saying is in contravention to either of those positions, as I understand them. As I said before, in reference to fiction and games in general, it may well be an interesting area of study "the fiction of games." I personally am not that interested in it when it doesn't integrate with play (IE when it is definitionally not an RPG). Anyway, the upshot is that we can say "these games are board games" and "this games are card games" and we can say "these games are RPGs" and I think there are fairly clear cut ways to decide how to apply those labels. That doesn't mean we should focus EXCLUSIVELY on those labels, card games and board games surely share elements, and so do RPGs. [/QUOTE]

Verification