Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6754310" data-attributes="member: 177">But, it seems like it is - you have broken down these three things that you feel is important - &quot;I feel these are the important aspects,&quot; is not an empirical basis.I have doubts that it is a particularly important aspect of the whole, though, given how many would prefer to not refer to the books in the course of play.&nbsp; The visual aesthetic is not very relevant when the book is closed.Then why did you say, &quot;if there really were such a thing as an “RPG scientist,” who really wanted to experience and understand what makes RPGs tick, there could hardly be any better exercise...&quot;?And, again, I submit that if one wants to understand what makes RPGs tick, taking apart games without reference to the players is not going to gain you much.&nbsp; It is the *players* that make a game tick.&nbsp; What you suggest would be like learning how to write by analyzing a lot of books, without regard to what people *thought* about the books, without regard to how well the books communicated or entertained people.Take it all apart, and rearrange in all combinations does not tell you what *works*.&nbsp; The result being that much of the project becomes busy-work that produces things nobody would want.&nbsp;&nbsp; As demonstrated in the link I posted, it can give you much, much more information than that.&nbsp; It can give you practical, real-world definitions of player types, and information on why players engage with games, and what they get out of them.&nbsp; It can give you information on what makes a game *successful*, and what makes a game good in the eyes of its players, or bad in the eyes of its detractors.&nbsp; This is the real information about what makes RPGs tick, as it is information about the action of play.Now, your goal is also your methodology, which is circular.&nbsp; An &quot;RPG scientist&quot; would say you are assuming the conclusion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6754310, member: 177"] But, it seems like it is - you have broken down these three things that you feel is important - "I feel these are the important aspects," is not an empirical basis. I have doubts that it is a particularly important aspect of the whole, though, given how many would prefer to not refer to the books in the course of play. The visual aesthetic is not very relevant when the book is closed. Then why did you say, [i]"if there really were such a thing as an “RPG scientist,” who really wanted to experience and understand what makes RPGs tick, there could hardly be any better exercise..."[/i]? And, again, I submit that if one wants to understand what makes RPGs tick, taking apart games without reference to the players is not going to gain you much. It is the *players* that make a game tick. What you suggest would be like learning how to write by analyzing a lot of books, without regard to what people *thought* about the books, without regard to how well the books communicated or entertained people. Take it all apart, and rearrange in all combinations does not tell you what *works*. The result being that much of the project becomes busy-work that produces things nobody would want. As demonstrated in the link I posted, it can give you much, much more information than that. It can give you practical, real-world definitions of player types, and information on why players engage with games, and what they get out of them. It can give you information on what makes a game *successful*, and what makes a game good in the eyes of its players, or bad in the eyes of its detractors. This is the real information about what makes RPGs tick, as it is information about the action of play. Now, your goal is also your methodology, which is circular. An "RPG scientist" would say you are assuming the conclusion. [/QUOTE]

Verification