I don't trust forewords to accurately reflect how the game is being played, or even necessarily how the game is designed to be played. I'm curious if WoD authors ever had that explicit contrast put to them, the need to sell the game as dramatic, angsty art and yet write stuff that appeals to the group of people who just wanted to play vampires and werewolfs for maximum carnage.
Yes, what the creator thought of his creation does have to factor in. But I don't get what that has to do with the second part; it's possible the self-definition is unachievable in the game system or that the fullest design potential is more then what the designers dreamed of. I'd pull out Starcraft and probably OD&D for the second, and any number of failed games for the first.
And who really cares how the game is supposed to be played? We're gamers, and good games are ones that play well in practice, and frequently even if the developer is there to explain how it's supposed to be played, maybe people like it better this way! Nothing really matters but the game in play.
So, what exactly do you mean if it wasn't that the text of the game is pointless and everything develops from how the game is being played at the table?
I got as far as "D&D isn't a roleplaying game because you can play it successfully without roleplaying, but Vampire and Call of Cthulhu are true roleplaying games because if you play without roleplaying you're doing it wrong."
